Skip to main content

Full text of "Introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures"

See other formats 


§<o 


:CO 


t(W}F$fl^W$wf 

^ 


i 


lililll 

i&ftVreH&fcH'ft^jV.'jM 

^^V^fe^ 


LIBRARY 


OF 


BIBLICAL  AND  THEOLOGICAL 


LITERATURE. 


EDITED   BY 

GEORGE  R.  CROOKS,  D.D., 

AND 

JOHN  F.  HURST,  D.D. 


VOL  I.-INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  HOLY 

SCRIPTURES. 


NEW  YORK:   HUNT  &   EATON. 
CINCINNATI:   CRANSTON  &  STOWE. 


PUBLISHERS'  ANNOUNCEMENT. 


design  of  the  Editors  and  Publishers  of  the 
•*•  BIBLICAL  AND  THEOLOGICAL  LIBRARY  is  to  furnish 
ministers  and  laymen  with  a  series  of  works,  which, 
in  connection  with  the  Commentaries  now  issuing,  will 
make  a  compendious  apparatus  for  study.  While  the 
theology  of  the  volumes  will  be  in  harmony  with  the 
doctrinal  standards  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
the  aim  will  be  to  make  the  entire  Library  acceptable 
to  all  evangelical  Christians. 

The  following  writers  will  co-operate  in  the  author 
ship  of  the  series:  Dr.  Harman,  on  the  Introduction  to 
the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  Dr.  Terry,  on  Bib 
lical  Hermeneutics;  Drs.  Bennett  and  Whitney,  on 
Biblical  and  Christian  Archaeology  ;  Dr.  James  E.  Lati- 
mer,  on  Systematic  Theology ;  the  Editors,  on  Theo 
logical  Encyclopaedia  and  Methodology  ;  Dr.  Ridga- 
way,  on  Evidences  of  Christianity ;  Prof.  Little,  on 
Christian  Theism  and  Modern  Speculative  Thought ; 
Dr.  Crooks,  on  the  History  of  Christian  Doctrine ;  and 
Bishop  Hurst,  on  the  History  of  the  Christian  Church. 


4  PUBLISHERS'  ANNOUNCEMENT. 

In  the  preparation  of  every  treatise  the  latest  litera 
ture  will  be  consulted,  and  its  results  incorporated. 
The  works  comprised  in  the  series  will  be  printed  in 
full  octavo  size,  and  finished  in  the  best  style  of  typog 
raphy  and  binding.  A  copious  index  will  accompany 
each  volume. 

The  first  volume,  by  Dr.  Harman,  on  the  Introduction 
to  the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  the  second,  by 
Dr.  Terry,  on  Biblical  Hermeneutics,  and  the  volume 
on  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Methodology,  by  the 
Editors,  are  already  before  the  public.  The  others  will 
follow  as  rapidly  as  practicable. 


INTRODUCTION 


TO  THE 


STUDY  OF  THE  HOLY 
SCRIPTURES. 


VOX;.    I.    OF    THE    T^IBRATiY. 


BY 

HENRY  M.  HARMAN,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  GREEK  AND  HEBREW  IN  DICKINSON   COLLEGE. 


NEW  YORK:  HUNT  &  EATON. 
CINCINNATI;   CRANSTON  &•  STOWE. 


COPYRIGHT  1878,  BY 


NEW  YORK. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 


[N  the  preparation  of  this  volume  I  have  relied  upon  orig 
inal  sources  of  information.  The  edition  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Fathers  which  has  been  chiefly  used  is  that  of  the  Abbe* 
J.  P.  Migne.  From  this  nearly  all  the  extracts  from  the  Fa 
thers  are  taken.  The  originals  of  the  most  important  passages 
quoted  are  given  at  the  foot  of  the  pages.  Other  ancient  au 
thorities,  in  nearly  all  instances,  are  also  quoted  from  the  orig 
inal  authors. 

For  the  Old  Testament,  in  addition  to  the  Hebrew  text,  my 
principal  aids  have  been  Tischendorfs  edition  of  the  LXX,  the 
Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  Professor  Lee's 
edition  of  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  Blaney's  edition  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  My  chief 
sources  for  ascertaining  the  correct  text  of  the  New  Testament 
have  been  the  critical  Greek  texts  of  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles, 
copies  of  the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  and  Alexandrian  Codices  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  Peshito-Syriac  version — to  which  I 
added,  before  the  New  Testament  portion  of  the  work  had 
passed  through  the  press,  Blanchini's  edition  of  MSS.  of  the 
Latin  version  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  Schwartze's 
edition  of  the  Memphitic  (or  Coptic)  version  of  the  four  Gos 
pels,  with  readings  from  the  Sahidic  (or  Theban)  version.  The 
views  of  the  Talmudists  respecting  the  books  of  the  Old  Test 
ament  I  have  given  almost  invariably  from  a  German  work 
entitled  Der  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments  nach  den  Ueberlie- 


8  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

ferungen  in  Talmud  und  Midrasch,  by  Professor  Dr.  Julius 
Fiirst,  the  distinguished  Jewish  rabbinical  scholar. 

I  have  taken  special  pains  to  secure  the  very  latest  critical 
works  on  the  New  Testament,  that  I  might  present  the  most 
recent  views  of  the  German  critics,  both  evangelical  and  ration 
alistic.  For  example:  I  have  used  the  Einleitung  (Introduc 
tion)  of  Hilgenfeld,  of  the  Tubingen  school,  published  at  the 
close  of  1874,  and  Mangold's  edition  of  Bleek's  Einleitung,  pub 
lished  in  the  early  part  of  1875.  This  Introduction  is,  however, 
based  upon  that  of  no  other  writer,  nor  have  I  taken  any  one 
as  a  model. 

I  am  indebted  to  Drs.  Crooks  and  Hurst,  the  projectors  and 
editors  of  the  series  of  which  the  present  volume  is  one,  for  the 
careful  revision  of  the  manuscript,  and  for  valuable  suggestions, 
which  will,  I  am  sure,  add  to  the  practical  value  of  the  work. 
I  have  had  their  hearty  co-operation  during  the  entire  progress 
of  my  labors. 

Marginal  notes  on  the  pages,  and  two  copious  indexes,  one 
of  topics  and  the  other  of  the  authors  quoted,  wil1  it  is  hoped, 
facilitate  reference. 

The  work  is  now  offered  to  the  public,  with  the  earnest  prayer 
that  it  may  contribute  something  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  to  the  confirmation  of  Christianity  as  a  Divine 
Revelation,  without  whose  light  and  power  all  our  intellectual 
progress  and  civilization  will  tend  only  to  barbarism 

DICKINSON  COLLEGE,  CARLISLE,  PA. 
Sept.  9,  1878. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FOURTH  EDITION. 


IN  this  edition  of  the  "  Introduction  "  I  have  examined,  and 
endeavored  to  show  the  falsity  of,  the  theory  of  Graf, 
Kayser,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  and  W.  Robertson  Smith,  who 
hold  that  the  priestly  laws  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Penta 
teuch  were  not  recorded  until  the  period  of  the  Babylonian  cap 
tivity,  and  that  they  were  completed  about  the  time  of  Ezra. 

When  I  discussed  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  in 
the  first  edition,  the  new  critical  opinions  did  not  seem  im 
portant  enough  to  demand  a  separate  refutation.  Since  that 
time  I  have  examined  them  again,  and  studied  nearly  the 
whole  Hebrew  Bible  with  special  reference  to  them.  As  a 
result,  it  seems  to  me  perfectly  clear  that  the  entire  Penta 
teuch  is  older  than  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament ;  I 
have,  therefore,  no  change  of  view  to  announce  and  no  conces 
sions  to  make  to  the  new  critical  school. 

Large  additions  have  accordingly  been  made  in  this  edition 
to  the  part  relating  to  the  Pentateuch.  In  other  portions  of 
the  book  I  have  also  added  new  matter  and  made  some 
abridgments  and  corrections. 

DICKINSON  COLLEGE,  CARLISLE,  PA., 
January  I,  1884. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 
PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS Page  24 

Scope  of  the  investigation— Divine  revelation  not  improbable— Biblical  criticism  progressive 
—Difficulties  in  the  Bible  no  sufficient  ground  of  offence— Two  factors  the  divine  and  the 
human,  are  to  be  recognised  In  the  Bible— Views  of  the  early  Church  a  ad  of  the  Reformers 
respecting  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures— The  extent  of  inspiration  in  the  different  books, 
and  the  methods  by  which  God  communicate*!  himself  to  the  ancient  prophets— Proof  of  the 
Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  derived  from  the  sublimity  of  their  doctrines  and  the  fulfilment 
of  their  prophecies— The  wonderful  plan  revealed  In  the  Canon. 

CHAPTER  H. 
THE  CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 33 

The  origin  of  the  term  Canon— The  catalogues  of  Melito,  Orlgen,  Hilary,  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  Eplphanius,  and  Jerome— The  catalogues  of  Josephus,  Philo,  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  and 
the  Talmudists. 

CHAPTER  IH. 
THE  HEBREW  AND  ITS  COGNATE  TONGUES 41 

The  Old  Testament  written  chiefly  In  Hebrew,  but  also  partly  In  Chaldee— The  origin  of  the 
name  Hebrew— The  regions  in  which  the  Hebrew,  Punic,  Syriac,  and  Chaldee  languages  flour 
ished,  and  the  books  and  inscriptions  found  therein— The  Arabic,  ^thlopic,  and  Himyarittc— 
Some  peculiarities  of  the  Semitic  languages— The  different  periods  of  the  Hebrew  language— The 
means  by  which  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  has  been  preserved— Some  account  of  great  modern 
Hebraists,  and  a  notice  of  some  of  the  most  important  grammars  and  lexicons  of  the  Semitic 
languages. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  CONDITION  OF  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT— HEBREW  MANU 

SCRIPTS 48 

The  loss  of  very  ancient  Hebrew  MSS.— A  list  of  the  oldest  that  have  been  preserved— The 
origin  of  the  vowel  points— The  conscientious  labours  of  the  Masorltes  upon  the  Hebrew  text. 

CHAPTER  V. 
ANCIENT  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 50 

1.  THE  SKPTUAOINT.— Historical  sketch  of  the  origin  of  this  version— Character  of  the  Septua- 
gtnt— The  text  of  the  Septuagint— Editions  of  the  Septuagint. 

2.  THE  TARGUMS. -The  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel— The  Targum  of 
Pseudo-Jonathan— The  Targum  of  Jerusalem— Editions  of  the  Targums. 

3.  THB  STRIAC  TRANSLATION. 

*.  THK  LATIN  VERSIONS.— The  Itala— Jerome's  translation  of  the  Old  Testament-  Revision 
of  this  Latin  version  (Vulgate)  by  order  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

8.  EGYPTIAN  TRANSLATIONS.— The  Coptic  or  Memphitic,  the  Sahldlc  or  Theban. 

6.  THE  ^ETHIOPIC  VERSION.  7.  THE  ARMENIAN  VERSION.  8.  THE  GEORGIAN  VERSION, 
9.  THE  GOTHIC  VERSION.  1O.  THE  SLAVONIAN  VERSION.  11.  THE  ARABIC  VERSION.  12.  THE 
SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH  AND  ITS  VERSIONS. 


13  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH— HISTORY  OF  VIEWS  RESPECTING  IT- 
DOCUMENT  HYPOTHESIS— VIEWS  OF  THE  NEW  CRITICAL  SCHOOL.  66 

Universally  ascribed  to  Moses  by  the  ancient  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches-Its  genuine 
ness  first  questioned  by  the  Gnostics-First  seriously  attacked  about  the  time  of  the  Reforma 
tion-Views  of  Spinoza,  Richard  Simon,  and  Le  Clerc-Attack  of  Bolingbroke-Defended  by 
Michaelis  and  Eichhorn- Attacked  by  the  Wolfenbuttel  Fragmentists— Other  attacks  upon  the 
Pentateuch— Vater,  De  Wette— Defence  of  the  Pentateuch  by  Jahn,  Rosenmuller,  Sack,  Graves, 
and  others— The  views  of  Herbst,  Volney,  Hartmann,  Von  Bohlen,  Vatke,  George,  Gesenius, 
and  stahelin— Astruc's  document  hypothesis-Von  Lengerke's  theory-The  views  of  Ewald, 
Knobel,  and  Colenso-Green's  reply  to  Colenso— Defence  of  the  Pentateuch  by  Hengstenberg, 
Havernick,  Keil,  and  others— The  theories  of  Sohrader,  Davidson,  Bleek,  and  Furst— The  new 
critical  school :  Graf,  Kayser,  Wellbausen,  Kuenen,  and  W.  Robertson  Smith— Opponents  of 
the  new  critical  school :  Noldeke,  Riehm,  Curtiss,  Klostermann,  Dillmann,  Watts,  Stebbins,  and 
Green— The  views  of  Delitzsch. 

CHAPTER  VII. 
EXAMINATION  OF  THE  DOCUMENT  HYPOTHESIS 78 

A  discussion  of  the  use  of  the  divine  names  in  Genesis  and  the  first  part  of  Exodus— 
Bleek's  objection  to  statements  in  Exod.  vi  considered— Various  historical  inaccuracies 
alleged  by  Bleek  considered— The  numbering  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Numbers  considered— The  building  of  the  tabernacle— The  number  of  the  firstborn  males 
among  the  children  of  Israel— Bleek's  objection  to  the  chronological  order  of  Num.  ix,  12, 
answered— The  alleged  contradiction  between  Num.  iv  and  viii,  24-26,  considered. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE  UNITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 05 

A  unity  of  plan  throughout  the  whole  Pentateuch— The  history  sacred  in  character,  and 
generally  limited  to  the  chosen  people— Genesis  an  introduction  to  the  other  books— Proof  of 
unity  from  connection  of  events. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  ART  OF  ALPHABETICAL  WRITING  AMONG  THE 
HEBREWS,  AND  THE  STATE  OF  THE  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES  IN  GENERAL 
IN  THE  MOSAIC  AGE 99 

Hieroglyphical  writing  in  Egypt— The  Hebrew  alphabet  originated  in  Palestine— Ancient 
alphabetical  writing  among  the  Phoenicians— Antiquity  of  the  art  of  writing  in  Italy  and  Hin- 
dostan— Writing  in  Palestine  before  the  time  of  Moses— The  Egyptians  before  the  age  of 
Moses  possessed  a  knowledge  of  those  arts  referred  to  in  the  Pentateuch. 

CHAPTER  X. 

PROOF  FROM  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  GREAT  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 103 

Internal  evidence  that  no  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  could  have  been  written  either  during  or 
after  the  Babylonian  captivity.  This  is  evident  from  the  phraseology  that  came  into  use 
during  the  captivity,  especially  the  names  of  months  and  measures,  and  the  absence  in  the 
Pentateuch  of  Chaldaisms  which  are  found  in  the  books  written  during  and  after  the  captivity 
—Internal  proof  that  the  whole  Pentateuch  is  older  than  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
This  is  evident  from  the  archaisms  that  pervade  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  PROBABILITY  THAT  MOSES,  AS  LEGISLATOR,  WOULD  HAVE  WRITTEN 
HIS  LAWS,  AND  ALSO  THE  ANNALS  OF  THE  HEBREW  PEOPLE..  ..  114 

Ancient  testimony  of  heathen  to  the  existence  of  Moses  and  his  legislation— The  Egyptians 
h;id  a  written  code  of  laws  before  the  time  of  Moses— Every  thing  in  Egypt  in  the  courts  of 
jn/iticH  was  done  in  writing— The  lawgivers  of  antiquity  wrote  their  laws— Necessity  that  Moses 
should  write  his  laws. 


CONTENTS.  13 

CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR 117 

It  professes  to  be  written  by  Moses — The  use  of  the  third  person  by  Moses  has  its  analogies 
in  the  histories  of  Xenophon,  Caesar,  and  Josephus— De  Wette's  objection  to  the  Mosaic  author 
ship  answered. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY 122 

The  charge  of  its  contradicting  the  other  books  considered— The  impossibility  of  its  being 
forged  at  a  late  age — Bleek's  objection  considered — Internal  evidence  of  its  Mosaic  author 
ship—Additions  in  Deuteronomy  to  the  Mosaic  history  contained  in  the  other  books— Modiflca- 
tions  of  previous  legislation  -  Concluding  reflections. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

PROOF  FROM  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  PEN 
TATEUCH  133 

The  directions  respecting  the  building  of  the  Tabernacle  written  down  at  the  time— The  laws 
respecting  leprosy  were  enacted  in  the  desert— The  regulations  respecting  the  Levites  pertain  to 
the  desert— Regulations  respecting  the  high  priest's  dress  taken  from  Egypt— The  exact  enumer 
ation  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  list  of  their  encampments. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

FALSITY  OF  THE  THEORY  THAT  THE  EARLY  LEGISLATION  OF  THE  PENTA 
TEUCH  CONSISTED  OF  ONLY  EXODUS  xxi-xxm 142 

The  laws  in  Exod.  xxi-xxlii  are  too  meagre,  and  in  parts  too  indefinite,  to  have  been  put  into 
operation  without  further  legislation— Examples  of  this— Testimonies  in  Deuteronomy  to 
Levitical  precepts  found  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch— The  testimony  of  Hosea  to  a 
large  early  code  of  divine  laws  given  to  Israel— Discussion  of  Hosea  viii,  12. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  NEW  CRITICAL  SCHOOL  ON  THE 
PRIESTLY  AND  SACRIFICIAL  SYSTEMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH 148 

The  new  critical  school  of  Kuenen,  W.  Robertson  Smith,  and  others  asserts  that  in  the  original 
Pentateuchal  legislation  all  Levites  could  be  priests,  and  that  the  restriction  of  the  priesthood  to 
the  sons  of  Aaron  was  the  work  of  Ezra— Examination  of  the  Jewish  history  in  the  consideration 
and  refutation  of  this  theory— Proof  that  the  sacrificial  system  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pen 
tateuch  is  a  part  of  the  original  legislation  of  Moses— A  consideration  of  the  assertion  of  the 
new  critical  school  that  the  sacrificial  system  arose  later  and  was  not  approved  by  the  proph 
ets—An  examination  of  Jer.  vii,  21-23,  and  Isa.  i,  11-14— General  reflections  upon  the  subject. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
THE  ALLEGED  TRACES  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH  OF  A  POST-MOSAIC  AGE.  157 

General  reflections— Examination  of  the  alleged  post-Mosaic  traces— No  clear  allusion  in 
Deuteronomy  to  any  thing  later  than  the  Mosaic  Age  except  in  the  last  chapter. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 1 74 

The  origin  of  the  Samaritans,  and  their  relation  to  the  Jews— The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  de 
rived  from  the  ten  tribes — Its  character. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  ANTIQUITY,  AUTHORITY,  AND  INTEGRITY 
OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  FURNISHED  BY  THE  SEPTUAGINT,  EZRA,  NEHE- 
MIAH,  AND  THE  PROPHETS 180 

CHAPTER  XX. 

ALLUSIONS  TO  THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  THE  BOOKS  OF  PROVERBS  AND 
PSALMS.  . ,  191 


14  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    XXI. 

TESTIMONIES  TO  THE  EXISTENCE  AND  AUTHOKITY  OP  THE  PENTATEUCH 
FURNISHED  BY  THE  HISTORY  IN  THE  BOOKS  OF  SAMUEL  AND 
KINGS 194 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
TRACES  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  THE  BOOKS  OF  RUTH  AND  JUDGES.  . . .   205 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 
PROOF  OF  THE  EXISTENCE  AND  AUTHORITY  OP  THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  THB 

BOOK  OF  JOSHUA 208 

References  in  Joshua  to  Deuteronomy— References  In  Joshua's  acts  to  the  Pentateuch- 
Historical  facts  the  same  in  Joshua  as  in  the  Pentateuch— The  Levltical  precepts  in  full  force 
In  the  age  of  Joshua— Proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Book  of  Joshua. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

REFLECTIONS  ON  THE  REFERENCES  TO  THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  THE  WRIT 
INGS  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  IN  THE  POST-MOSAIC  AGE 211 

Impartiality  of  the  Old  Testament  historians— Bleek's  unfair  method  of  treating  the  evidence 
for  the  early  existence  and  authority  of  the  Pentateuch— His  tacit  admission  of  the  existence 
of  the  first  four  books  in  the  time  of  the  Judges— Strength  of  the  testimony  of  the  Post-Mosaic 
books. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE    ALLEGED   NON-OBSERVANCE    OF     PORTIONS    OF    THE   MOSAIC   LAW    FOR 

SEVERAL  CENTURIES  AFTER  MOSES,  CONSIDERED  IN  ITS  BEARING  UPON 
THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 213 

Violation  of  laws  no  proof  of  their  non-existence— General  compliance  with  the  precept* 
respecting  the  place  of  sacrifice— Shi loh  a  sacred  place— No  real  violation  of  the  precept  enjoin 
ing  the  place  of  sacrifice— Circumstances  under  which  the  Israelites  could  not  comply  with 
Deut.  xii,  11. 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH,  AND  ITS  BEAR 
ING  ON  THE  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  WORK 218 

The  Mosaic  cosmogony  compared  with  the  cosmogonies  of  heathen  religions— The  object  of 
Moses  in  his  account  of  creation— The  Mosaic  order  of  creation  in  harmony  with  science— The 
Etruscan  and  Babylonian  accounts  of  creation— The  comparatively  recent  origin,  unity,  and  the 
primitive  seat  of  mankind— The  Mosaic  account  of  the  primitive  condition  of  man  agrees  with 
universal  tradition— The  tradition  of  a  deluge  universal  among  the  great  races  of  mankind— 
The  genealogy  of  the  sons  of  Noah  accordant  with  modern  ethnology— The  story  of  Nimrod 
Illustrated  on  monuments— Confusion  of  tongues— The  gifts  presented  to  Abraham  in  Egypt. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

FURTHER  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY  CON 
TAINED  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH 229 

The  time  between  the  Deluge  and  the  building  of  the  great  Pyramid— Indirect  confirmation 
of  the  account  of  the  rebellion  of  the  kings  in  Genesis  xiv,  found  on  Babylonian  monuments— 
The  exact  knowledge  of  Egyptian  affairs  shown  in  the  history  of  Joseph— The  increase  of  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt  considered— Length  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt. 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

TITE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY  CONTAINED  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH — 
CONCLUSION 243 

Internal  credibility  of  the  history  of  the  institution  of  the  Passover— The  route  of  the  Israel- 
.tes  on  leaving  Egypt,  and  the  exact  knowledge  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting 


CONTENTS.  15 

the  Slnaltlc  desert— Topograpny  of  Moab  correctly  given  In  the  story  of  Balaam— Objections  ot 
Colenso  to  various  parts  of  the  Mosaic  history  considered— The  opinion  of  De  Wette  concern- 
Ing  the  miraculous  features  of  the  Pentateuch  considered— Colenso *s  general  objection  to  the 
miracles  of  the  Pentateuch— The  author  of  the  Pentateuch  possessed  of  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  affairs  concerning  which  he  wrote. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

THE  COMMAND  TO  EXTERMINATE  THE  CANAANTTES,   AND  THE  GENERAL 
SEVERITY  OP  THE  MOSAIC  SYSTEM 255 

A  divine  order  only  could  Justify  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanltes— The  act  In  the  divine 
visitation  the  important  point— Not  unusual  for  the  innocent  to  suffer  with  the  guilty— God 
frequently  uses  one  nation  as  his  Instrument  to  punish  other  nations— An  even-handed  Justice 
shown  both  toward  Israelites  and  Canaanites— The  Mosaic  system  adapted  to  the  Hebrew  peo 
ple—The  comparative  purity  of  the  morality  and  the  sublimity  of  the  theology  of  the  Penta 
teuch. 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OP  CHRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES  TO  THB  GENUINENESS  OF 

THE  PENTATEUCH 258 

Testimonies  from  the  Gospels  and  Epistles. 

CHAPTER  ymrrT 
THE  EARLIER  PROPHETS:  THE  BOOK  OP  JOSHUA 259 

Unity  of  the  book— The  date  and  authorship  of  the  book— The  historical  credibility  of  Joshua 
—The  history  evidently  contemporary— The  standing  still  of  the  sun  and  moon— Probable  ref 
erence  to  this  miracle  In  Habukkuk. 

CHAPTER  XXXH. 
THE  BOOK  OP  JUDGES 270 

The  unity  of  the  book— Date  and  authorship— Not  written  later  than  the  middle  of  the  reign 
of  David— Could  not  have  been  written  before  the  time  of  Saul— Conjectural  emendation  in 
chap,  xviii,  80— Davidson  and  Bleek  on  the  date  of  Judges— The  character  of  Its  history— 
De  Wette's  admission  respecting  the  genuineness  of  its  history— The  views  of  Davidson  and 
Schrader. 

CHAPTER  XXXHI. 

THE  BOOK  OP  RUTH 275 

Design  of  the  Book— Written  to  give  the  ancestry  of  David— Its  date— Written  probably  In 
the  time  of  David— Character  of  the  narrative— The  history  a  beautiful  picture  of  Hebrew  life 
— Rabbinical  view  of  the  Book  of  Ruth. 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 
THE  BOOKS  OP  SAMUEL 377 

Date  and  authorship— Written  before  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes— The  Prophet  Nathan  prob 
ably  the  author— The  character  of  the  history— The  opinions  of  modern  critics  concerning  the 
books— Alleged  contradictions— Saul's  appointment  to  meet  Samuel  in  Gllgal— Saul's  ignorance 
of  David's  family  considered— Other  alleged  contradictions  examined. 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 
THB  Two  BOOKS  OP  KINGS..  .  28fi 


Sources  and  time  of  their  composition— Composed  from  contemporary  historical  documents 
—Credibility  of  the  history  in  the  Books  of  Kings— Confirmation  of  the  Books  of  Kings  from 
ancient  monuments— The  Inscription  on  the  Moabite  stone— Confirmation  from  Assyrian  monu 
ments—Mention  of  Pul,  King  of  Assyria,  by  Berosus— Capture  of  Samaria  noted  in  the  annato 
of  Sargon— Confirmation  of  an  Important  part  of  Hezeklah's  history  In  the  annals  of  Sennn^v 
ertb — The  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army — Merodach-Baladan  In  Assyrian  Jnscriptloas- 
Ot/her  confirmations  of  this  history. 


16  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

THE  BOOKS  OF  CHRONICLES 297 

The  dato  of  their  composition  and  their  authorship—Probably  written  in  the  time  of  Ezra— 
Ezra  probably  their  author— Example  of  words  common  to  Chronicle  and  Ezra— The  sources 
of  the  history— Its  credibility. 

CHAPTER  XXXVII. 
THE  BOOK  OP  EZRA 306 

The  unity  of  the  book— Its  author— The  objections  of  modern  critics  to  the  unity  of  Ezra 
considered— The  hypothesis  of  Keil— The  change  of  person  no  objection  to  its  unity. 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 
THE  BOOK  OF  NEHEMIAH 313 

The  authorship  and  unity  of  the  book— Objection  to  Nehemiah's  being  the  author  of  the  three 
middle  chapters  considered— These  chapters  evidently  written  by  »in  eye-witness— The  whole 
book,  with  the  possible  exception  of  chap,  xii,  11,  written  by  Nehemiah. 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 
THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER 316 

Credibility  of  the  history— The  date  and  author— Character  of  the  book— It  has  been  a  ground 
of  offence  to  some  Christian  scholars. 

CHAPTER  XL. 
THE  POETICAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 323 

The  poetry  of  the  Hebrews:  Its  rhythm  and  other  peculiarities. 

CHAPTER  XLL 
THE  BOOK  OF  JOB 326 

Composed  of  three  parts:  prologue,  dialogue,  and  epilogue— Integrity  of  the  book— Its 
character  and  design— Date  of  the  composition  and  the  author— The  language  post-Mosaic— 
Not  probable  that  Moses  is  the  author— Probably  written  in  the  time  of  Solomon— The  author 
an  inhabitant  of  Southern  Judea— The  time  in  which  Job  lived  uncertain— Concluding  re 
flections. 

CHAPTER  XLII. 
THJL  BOOK  OF  PSALMS 334 

Consists  of  five  divisions— The  superscriptions  of  the  Psalms— Opinions  of  modern  critics 
en  the  accuracy  of  the  superscriptions— David's  authorship  of  certain  Psalms  denied  by  Bleek 
—The  anonymous  Psalms— Psalms  attributed  to  Asaph— Psalms  attributed  to  the  sons  of 
Korah— Authorship  of  other  Psalms.  ORIGIN  OP  THE  COLLECTION  OF  TUB  PSALMS— KelTs 
theory  of  the  origin  of  the  collection— The  singing  of  psalms  a  part  of  Hebrew  worship— A 
collection  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah— On  what  principle  were  the  Psalms  arranged  ? 
THE  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  PSALMS— No  proof  that  they  have  been  altered.  THE  IMPRECATIONS 
w  THK  PSALMS— The  Imperative  mode  used  for  the  future  tense. 

CHAPTER  XLIII. 
THE  BOOK  OF  PROVERBS 345 

rhe  book  divisible  into  four  sections— THE  GENUINENESS  o*  THE  PROVERBS  WHICH  ABB 
ATTRIBUTED  TO  SOLOMON— The  first  and  second  sections  especially  considered— Peculiarities  of 
the  language  of  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon— Agur  and  Lemuel  unknown. 

CHAPTER  XLIV. 

THE  BOOK  OF  ECCLESIASTES 349 

The  design  of  the  book— Schrader's  explanation  of  Eccleslastes— Date  and  authorship, 

CHAPTER  XLV. 
THE  SONO  OF  SOLOMON 353 

Delitzsch's  analysis  of  the  song— The  author— Its  design— Its  canonicity. 


CONTENTS.  17 

CHAPTER  XLVL 
THE  LAMENTATIONS  OP  JEREMIAH , ^ 358 

The  author  generally  conceded  to  be  the  prophet  Jeremiah. 

CHAPTER  XLVH. 
TJTE  PROPHETIC  BOOKS 360 

HEBREW  PROPHECY— Use  of  the  term  prophet—The  schools  of  the  prophets— Characteristics 
*t  the  Hebrew  prophets— Symbolism  of  the  prophets— Views  of  the  character  of  the  prophecies 
-  Bleek's  view— Reflections  on  the  nature  of  some  prophecies— Conclusion  respecting  the  fulfil 
ment  of  prophecy— A  CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE  OF  THK  HEBREW  PROPHETS. 

CHAPTER  XLYIH. 
THE  BOOK  OP  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH 364 

The  character  of  Isaiah's  prophecy— His  personal  history— Time  of  his  prophetic  labours— Sub 
jects  of  his  prophecies— Genuineness  of  the  book  considered— Ancient  testimonies  thereto. 

CHAPTER  XLIX. 
THE  PROPHET  JEREMIAH 383 

His  personal  history— Kings  of  Jeremiah's  time— The  genuineness  of  the  prophecies  of  Jere 
miah,  and  the  date  of  their  deliverance— Their  collection  and  arrangement. 

CHAPTER   L. 
THE  BOOK  OP  THE  PROPHECY  OF  EZEKIEL 393 

The  person  of  the  prophet— The  genuineness  of  the  book  considered. 

CHAPTER  LI. 

THE  BOOK  OP  DANIEL 396* 

Written  partly  In  Hebrew  and  partly  In  Chaldee,  yet  the  work  of  one  author,  as  now  gen 
erally  conceded— Objections  to  Its  genuineness  considered— Proofs  of  Its  genuineness— Its 
author  not  a  mythical  character— Ezekiel's  references  to  him— Bleek's  hypothesis. 

CHAPTER  LII. 
THE  TWELVB  MINOR  PROPHETS 423 

HOSEA:  The  period  of  his  prophetic  labours— The  book  may  be  divided  Into  two  parts- 
Date  of  composition. 

JOKL:  The  date  of  his  prophecy— Its  character. 

AMOS  :  Date  of  his  prophecies— Their  character. 

OBADIAH  :  His  prophecy— Its  character— Its  date. 

JONAH  :  Character  and  design  of  the  book— Probably  not  written  by  Jonah— Its  langrafv 
belongs  to  later  Hebrew. 

MICAH  :  His  prophetic  labours— Date  of  his  prophecy. 

N  AHUM  :  His  prophecy— Its  date— Style  of  the  book. 

HA B AKKUK  :  His  prophecy— Date  of  its  delivery. 

ZKPHANIAH  :  His  prophetic  labours  and  prophecy— Its  date  and  character. 

H AQQAI  :  His  prophetic  labours  and  the  time  of  the  deliverance  of  his  prophecies. 

ZECHARIAH  :  Genuineness  of  chapters  ix,  xiv— Character  of  the  prophecy. 

MAL  A.SHI  :  Date  of  composition-  -Character  of  the  prophecy. 

VOL.  L— 2 


18  CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  BOOKS  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 

CHAPTER  I. 
PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS 448 

Connection  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  Old-Written  records  necessary  to  perpetual* 
Chi  'stianity  as  a  divine  revelation. 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  RAPID  DIFFUSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  AND  THE  NUMBER  AND  LITERARY 
CHARACTER  OF  THE  EARLY  CHRISTIANS,  AS  BEARING  UPON  THE  GENU 
INENESS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 450 

Testimony  of  Tacitus  and  Pliny  to  the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity— Evidence  of  the  same 
fact  from  the  Acts— The  testimonies  of  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Bardesanes,  Origen,  and  others- 
Conversion  of  the  Empire  under  Constantino— Literary  proficiency  of  the  early  Christians- 
Notice  of  the  most  eminent  Christian  writers  of  the  early  centuries. 

CHAPTER  III. 

DIFFUSION  OP  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  AT  THE 
CHRISTIAN  EPOCH 457 

Diffusion  of  Greek  in  the  times  of  Cicero  and  Juvenal— Means  by  which  it  spread. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
CHARACTER  OF  THE  GREEK  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 459 

(Jrp*k  Dialects— Characteristics  of  Hellenistic  Greek— New  Testament  Hebraisms. 

CHAPTER  V. 

ANCIENT  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 462 

The  Codex  Slnalticus,  and  other  leading  UNCIAL  MSS.— The  most  important  CURSIVE  MSS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
ANCIENT  VERSIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 467 

The  Peshito  Syriac— The  Philoxenian  Translation— The  Jerusalem  Syriac— THE  LATIN  VER- 
MONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT— The  Coptic,  Memphitlc,  Thebaic,  Bashmuric,  ZEthioplc,  Gothic, 
and  Armenian  versions. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

EDITIONS  OP  THE  GREEK  TESTAMENT 481 

Early  critical  studies— TISCHENDORF— TREGELLES. 

CHAPTER  VHI. 

THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 488 

The  Books  of  the  New  Testament  Canon— Times  and  occasions  of  their  composition— Refer 
ences  to  the  books  in  early  writers— Justin  Martyr's  citations— The  Gospels  and  Epistles. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OP  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  RESPECTING  THE  CANON  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 490 

Canon  of  Muratori— Canon  of  the  old  Latin  version— Tertullian  and  the  Peshito-Syriac  version 
—Canon  of  Titus  Flavins  Clemens,  Irenaeus,  and  Origen— Eusebius'  list  of  Canonical  books- 


CONTENTS.  19 

Canon  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Athanaslus,  Gregory  Nazlanzen,  Didymus,  Ruflnus,  Ambrose» 
CLrysostom,  Augustine,  and  Jerome— The  Canon  of  the  Memphitic,  Theban,  ^thloplc,  Armenian, 
and  Gothic  versions. 

CHAPTER  X. 

GENUINENESS  OF  CANONICAL,  BOOKS  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 500 

The  four  Gospels— Universal  reception  of  the  Gospels  in  the  ancient  Church— External  evi 
dence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels. 

CHAPTER  XI. 
THE  TESTIMONY  OP  CELSUS  TO  THE  GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS..  518 

Proof  that  Celsus  had  before  him  all  four  Gospels— Quotations  from  John  In  Celsus— Celsui 
attributes  the  Gospels  to  Christ's  disciples. 

CHAPTER  XIL 

THE  TESTIMONY  OP  THE  HERETICS  OP  THE  SECOND  CENTURY  TO  OUR  FOUR 
GOSPELS 521 

The  Clementine  Homilies— The  testimony  of  Marcion— The  testimony  of  Basllldes— The  Ser 
pent  brethren— Reflections  on  the  Gnostic  testimony. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

EVIDENCE  OP  THE  GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPELS  PROM  THEIR   SUPER 
SCRIPTIONS  530 

Superscriptions  in  the  Codices  Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus— The  Gospels  had  superscriptions  IE 
the  second  century— Valuable  testimony  derived  from  Tertullian  on  this  point—Clementine 
Homilies. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW 533 

The  person  of  the  evangelist— Statements  of  the  early  Church  Fathers  respecting  this  Gospel 
—Reception  of  Matthew's  Gospel  by  early  Jewish  Christian  sects— Some  critics  favour  a  Greek 
original— Internal  evidence  that  Matthew  wrote  for  Jewish  Christians— Hilgenfeld's  theory  con 
sidered—Date  of  its  composition— Testimony  of  Irenaeus,  Clement,  and  Eusebius— The  views  01 
modern  critics— The  assertions  of  Strauss  and  Renan  respecting  interpolations  groundless- 
Genuineness  and  character  of  this  Gospel— Its  apostolic  character— The  objections  of  De  WettP 
considered— Bleek's  opinion  of  Matthew  considered. 

CHAPTER  XV. 
THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK 553 

The  person  of  the  evangelist— Character  of  this  Gospel— Contains  less  matter  than  Matthew- 
Its  omissions  of  and  additions  to  what  Matthew  contains— Mark  possessed  Independent  sources 
— Ewald's  theory  of  Mark's  Gospel— Genuineness  and  date  of  composition— Place  of  composition 

The  integrity  of  Mark. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  LUKE 563 

The  person  of  the  evangelist— The  author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
evidently  the  same  person— Date  of  its  composition— Contents  of  Luke  compared  with  those  of 
Matthew— The  design  of  Luke's  Gospel— The  statement  of  Luke  respecting  the  taxing  under 
Cyrenius,  (chap,  ii,  1,  2.)— The  statement  of  Luke  respecting  Lysanias— The  statement  confirmed 
by  an  inscription  recently  found  near  Baalbec. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN 579 

The  Apostle  John— Genuineness  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John— Additional  writers  In  the 
early  Church  who  received  John's  Gospel— It  was  received  by  all  parties  in  the  Council  of  Nicaea 


20  CONTENTS. 

A.  D.  325— It  was  an  authority  in  the  Council  of  Sardica  (A.  D.  347);  in  the  Council  of  Ancyra, 
n  Galatia  (A.  D.  358) ;  in  the  Council  of  Seleucia  (A.  D.  359) ;  in  the  Council  of  Laodicea  -Re 
flections  on  the  foregoing— The  unity  of  authorship  of  the  Gospel  and  First  Epistle  of  John— 
Internal  evidence  that  the  fourth  Gospel  proceeded  from  John— The  Logos  (Word)  in  John's 
Gospel— The  term  not  necessarily  from  Philo,  but  rather  Jewish— The  alleged  discrepancy  be 
tween  John  and  the  other  evangelists  respecting  the  day  of  the  month  on  which  Christ  was  cru- 
oifled— The  rejection  of  John's  Gospel  by  the  Alogiahs— Conclusion— The  time  and  place  of  ita 
composition— Synopsis  of  the  Contents— Integrity  of  this  Gospel— Opinions  respecting  chapter 
*xi— The  account  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  wanting  in  the  most  ancient  MSS.  ind  ve> 
glons— The  account  of  the  angel  troubling  the  pool  (chapter  v,  3,  4)  wanting  in  best  MSS.  and 
some  versions,  and  doubtless  spurious. 

CHAPTER  XVIIL 
APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS 627 

The  Protevangel  of  James  and  other  apocryphal  gospels— Their  legendary  character. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 630 

Sources  of  this  history— Its  credibility— Paley's  Horse  Paulinae—  Baur's  estimate  of  the  Acts— 
JJaur's  theory  of  the  purpose  of  the  Acts  examined— Reproof  of  Peter  by  Paul  explained— Paul 
tie  same,  as  exhibited  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles— Falsity  of  Baur's  theory— Other  points 
of  agreement  in  Acts  and  Epistles  respecting  Paul's  teachings— Luke's  accuracy. 

CHAPTER  XX. 
THE  EPISTLES  OP  PAUL 644 

The  person  of  the  apostle— Paul's  early  history— Attainments  in  knowledge,  conversion,  and 
missionary  Journeys— The  account  of  Paul's  preaching  and  martyrdom  given  by  Clement  of 
Rome— Characteristics  of  Paul  and  his  writings. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 649 

The  persons  addressed— Place  and  time  of  its  composition— Its  genuineness— Its  integrity. 

CHAPTER  XXH. 
THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS 653 

The  persons  addressed— Place  and  time  of  its  composition— Its  genuineness. 

CHAPTER  xxnr. 

THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS 657 

Place  and  time  of  its  composition— Genuineness  of  this  epistle. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS 659 

The  persons  addressed— Time,  place,  and  occasion  of  the  writing  of  it— Genuineness 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

TUB  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESTANS .   662 

The  persons  addressed— Place  and  time  of  its  composition— Its  genuineness. 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS 671 

Persons  addressed— Place  and  time  of  composition— Its  genuineness. 


CONTENTS.  21 

CHAPTER  XXVTL 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS 674 

Place  and  time  of  composition— Written  during  Paul's  first  Imprisonment— Genulneneau  ol 
this  epistle. 

CHAPTER  XXVLH. 

THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS 678 

The  persons  addressed— Place  and  time  of  its  composition— Its  genuineness. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 
THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS 680 

Place  and  time  of  its  composition— Its  genuineness. 

CHAPTER  XXX. 
THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES 683 

Objections  of  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  to  their  genuineness— Use  of  the  term  "  gnosls  "  in  Paul'* 
epistles— References  which  agree  with  the  practice  of  the  apostolic  age— Objections  drawn  from 
the  style  of  these  epistles— Special  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  First  Timothy— Considera 
tion  of  chap,  v,  14— Incidents  noted  in  these  epistles  proof  of  their  Pauline  origin -Paul's  travel! 
after  his  first  Imprisonment— Bearing  of  Acts  xx,  25— Passages  suggestive  of  the  genuineness 
of  these  epistles. 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 
THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY 691 

The  person  of  Timothy— Ancient  testimonies  to  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle. 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 
THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY 693 

Ancient  testimonies  to  its  genuineness— It  is  found  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  and  In  the 
Canon  of  Muratori. 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  TITUS 694 

Titus  mentioned  only  by  Paul— Ancient  testimonies  to  genuineness  of  this  epistle. 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON    696 

The  contents  of  the  epistle,  and  the  time  of  Its  composition— Its  genuineness— Its  general 
reception  in  the  ancient  Church— Defended  by  Hilgenfeld. 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 697 

The  persons  addressed:  The  epistle  not  general,  but  addressed  to  some  Church— Not  ad 
dressed  to  Palestinian  Christians— The  author— No  mention  of  the  author  In  the  epistle  itself— 
Opinions  of  the  fathers  upon  its  authorship— Character  of  the  epistle  as  bearing  upon  its  author 
ship— Bleek's  objection  to  the  Pauline  authorship— Peculiarities  of  style— Most  probably  not 
written  by  Paul— The  time  and  place  of  Its  composition— Written  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem,  probably  In  Italy. 

CHAPTER  XXXVL 
THE  OATHOLIC  EPISTLES 707 

THU.  GENERAL  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  :  Writer,  James  the  son  of  Alpheus— Luke's  notice  of  James 
—A  cousin  of  Jesus,  but  called  a  brother— GENUINENESS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  :  Found  in  all  the 
ancient  versions— Views  of  the  Fathers— The  opinions  of  Erasmus  and  Luther  respecting  this 
epistle— The  ground  of  Luther's  rejection  of  it— Agreement  between  Paul  and  James— Peculiari 
ties  of  James*  language— No  reasonable  doubt  of  its  genuineness— Hilgenfeld 's  objections  from 
Internal  evidence  considered— Probably  written  between  A.  D.  50  and  63  at  Jerusalem. 


22  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXXVH. 
THE  EPISTLES  OP  PETER 718 

Notices  of  Peter  In  the  New  Testament,  in  Clement  of  Rome,  aad  other  early  Fathers— Prob 
able  date  of  Peter's  arrival  In  Rome—His  martyrdom  there. 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 
THK  FIRST  EPISTLE  GENERAL  OF  PETER 722 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  :  This  epistle  universally  acknowledged  in  the  indent  Church 
—Alleged  rejection  of  it  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia— Modern  objections  to  its  genuineness  con 
sidered— De  Wette's  objections— Passages  in  1  Peter  supposed  by  De  Wette  to  be  borrowed  from 
Ephesians— Time  of  composition— The  language  used— Suits  the  time  of  Nero— Hilgenfeld's  date 
absurd— Written  from  Babylon,  probably  about  A.  D.  64. 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 
THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  GENERAL  OF  PETER 734 

THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THIS  EPISTLE:  External  evidence  of  its  genuineness  meagre— Paul's 
writings  described  in  it  as  Scripture— Quotations  of  Jude's  Epistle— Very  few  notices  of  the 
Epistle  in  the  Fathers— Generally  recognized  as  Peter's  in  the  fourth  century— Not  received 
by  the  Syrian  Christians— The  opinions  of  the  reformers  and  modern  critics  respecting  its 
genuineness. 

CHAPTER  XL. 
THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE 738 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  EPISTLE:  Opinions  of  the  Fathers— Modern  opinion— The  author's 
•tatement  respecting  himself— Quotation  in  Jude  from  apocryphal  writings. 

CHAPTER  XLI. 
THE  FIRST  EPISTLB  GENERAL  OF  JOHN 741 

ITS  GENUINENESS:  Universally  received  by  the  ancient  Church— Undoubtedly  genuine— 
Spuriousness  of  chap,  v,  7— Wanting  in  all  the  ancient  MSS.  and  versions— Its  first  appearance 
In  the  printed  text  of  the  Greek  Testament. 

CHAPTER  XLII. 
THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN 746 

THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  EPISTLE  :  Ancient  testimony  to  it— Doubtless  genuine. 

CHAPTER  XLIII. 
THE  THIRD  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN 747 

THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  EPISTLE:  Generally  acknowledged  to  be  genuine. 

CHAPTER  XLIV. 
THE  APOCALYPSE 749 

ITS  LINGUISTIC  CHARACTER:  It  abounds  in  Hebraisms  and  Irregular  constructions.  THE 
TIME  OF  ITS  COMPOSITION  :  The  testimony  of  the  Fathers— Probably  written  before  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  and  in  the  time  of  Nero— The  views  of  modern  critics  respecting  the  time  of  its 
composition.  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE— Statement  of  the  author— Testimony  of 
tie  early  Church  respecting  its  author— Almost  universally  received  in  the  second  century— 
Not  in  the  Peshito-Dionyslus  of  Alexandria  its  first  great  opponent— Writers  who  used  It  in 
the  fourth  century— Its  rejecters— Opinions  of  modern  critics  -  Rejected  as  the  work  of  the 
Apostle  John  by  Neander,  Bleek,  Lucke,  and  others— Received  as  the  Apostle  John's  by  Giese- 
ler-No  sufficient  reason  for  denying  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apocalypse— Points  of  similarity 
between  the  language  of  John  in  his  Gospel  and  First  Epistle  and  in  the  Apocalypse— Nothing  in 
tbe  Apocalypse  at  variance  with  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  CONTENTS  OF  THE  APOCA? 
irPSE— Its  general  design— Three  views  of  its  meaning. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

OF   THB 

HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


CHAPTER   I. 

INTRODUCTION INSPIRATIQN SUBLIMITY  OF  THE  DOC 
TRINES  OF  SCRIPTURE — THE  WONDERFUL  PLAN  OF  THB 
SACRED  CANON. 

TT  is  our  purpose,  in  the  present  volume,  to  examine  the  Genuine- 
^  ness,  Credibility,  Integrity,  Language,  Contents,  and  most  import 
ant  Ancient  Versions  of  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Bible.  An  inquiry 
of  such  a  nature  travels  over  a  long  period  of  human  scope  of  invw. 
history.  We  are  to  consider  books  extending  through  ^Wton. 
a  period  of  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years,  the  earliest  of  which 
appeared  at  the  dawn  of  history,  and  the  last  were  composed  when 
the  Roman  Empire  and  Pagan  Civilization  were  at  their  zenith  of 
power.  In  the  treatment  of  such  a  subject  much  depends  upon 
the  frame  of  mind  with  which  it  is  approached.  If  our  speculative 
system  excludes  from  the  universe  an  ever-living,  free,  supreme  In 
telligence,  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  all  that  is,  and  acknowl 
edges  nothing  but  unintelligent  physical  forces,  upon  whose  play 
all  things  depend,  we  are  wholly  unfit  to  deal  fairly  with  the  Sacred 
Canon.  For  in  such  a  case  Revelation,  Miracles,  and  Prophecies 
are  palpable  absurdities.  But  Atheism  can  never  be  a  positive  af 
firmation  ;  and  if  the  natural  phenomena  of  the  world  furnished  no 
proof  of  a  personal  God,  we  could  yet  philosophically  admit  the 
evidence  which  the  facts  of  the  Bible  give  of  his  exist-  ^  Thelst  te 
ence.  No  real  Theist  can  consistently  deny  the  possi-  compelled  to 
bility  of  revelation,  with  its  accompanying  proofs — mir-  menUve^ 
acles  and  prophecies — and  hence  he  is  ever  ready  to  tlon- 
listen  to  the  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  documents  that  establish 
them.  Nor  will  he  take  offense  at  a  written  revelation,  when  he  re 
flects  that  it  is  by  means  of  books,  in  the  order  of  Providence,  that 
mankind  are  instructed  in  the  various  affairs  of  the  world. 


24  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Biblical  Criticism,  like  all  other  branches  of  our  knowledge,  is  pro 
gressive.  The  thorough  study  of  Hebrew  and  its  cognate  languages, 
of  Attic  and  Hellenistic  Greek,  and  of  the  general  principles  of  phi 
lology  ;  the  profound  investigations  into  ancient  history;  the  discov 
ery  of  lost  works  and  of  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  ;  the  exca 
vation  of  ancient  ruins  and  the  deciphering  of  ancient  monuments ; 
and  a  more  thorough  knowledge  of  the  geography,  natural  history, 
and  customs  of  Palestine,  derived  from  numerous  modern  Oriental 
travelers,  have  all  thrown  great  light  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
in  many  instances  have  remarkably  confirmed  them. 

The  difficulties  that  frequently  meet  us  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
Difficulties  to  should  neither  surprise  nor  offend  us.  They  arise  part- 
the^udyouhe  fy  ^rom  tne  nature  of  the  subjects  treated,  partly  from 
Bible.  the  foreign  languages  in  which  the  Bible  is  written,  and 

partly  from  the  imperfectly  known  habits  of  the  people  to  whom 
the  various  parts  of  Revelation  were  originally  communicated.  If 
the  Bible  contained  nothing  that  required  deep  study,  it  would  have 
but  little  attraction  for  us.  As  it  is,  all  its  practical  parts  are  suffi 
ciently  clear,  while  those  of  a  more  abstruse  character  exercise  our 
thoughts,  our  patience,  and  our  faith.  And  this  holds  true  of  the 
physical  world,  in  which,  while  it  has  pleased  God  to  make  plain  to 
us  what  is  most  necessary,  he  has  at  the  same  time  hidden  much 
from  us,  and  given  us  a  large  field  in  which  to  develop,  through 
intense  study,  our  intellectual  powers,  by  solving  the  mysteries  of 
nature  and  discovering  her  laws. 

Two  factors  are  to  be  recognised  in  the  Bible — the  Divine  and  the 
Human — and  it  may  not  always  be  an  easy  matter  to  fix  the  limits 
of  each.  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  and  is  prof 
itable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right 
eousness."  (2  Tim.  iii,  16.)  Admitting  this  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  original,1  it  leaves  undetermined  what  books  constitute  the  Old 
Testament,  to  which  it  obviously  refers ;  nor  does  it  fix  the  extent 
of  their  inspiration,  or  fairly  include  the  New  Testament.  We  ac 
cordingly  find  different  views  held  by  Christian  scholars  respecting 
the  exact  degree  of  divine  influence  granted  the  sacred  writers. 

"  That  the  prophets  and  apostles  taught  under  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  was  the  universal  belief  of  the  ancient  Church,  founded 
in  the  testimony  of  Scripture  itself.  But  this  living  idea  of  inspira- 

1  The  Greek  is,  7ru<ra  ypatf,  &c6m>cwrroc  KOI  cty^of,  etc.  As  there  is  an  omission 
of  tori,  it  has  been  disputed  whether  it  is  to  be  supplied  before  or  after  tieonvevarof 
In  the  latter  case  the  passage  would  be  rendered,  "  All  Scripture  given  by  inspiration 
of  God  is  also  profitable,"  etc.  This  is  the  rendering  of  the  Peshito  Syriac  and 
the  Vulgate,  and  is  the  view  of  some  eminent  critics  •  but  the  /ca/  seems  to  forbid  it. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  25 

tion  was  by  no  means  confined  to  the  written  letter      The    Belief  of  prim- 

J  .  ,     ,  •  itive  Church  In 

Jews,  indeed,  had  come  to  believe  m  the  verbal  mspira-  inspiration  of 
tion  of  their  sacred  writings,  before  the  canon  of  the  New  the  scriptures. 
Testament  was  completed,  at  a  time  when,  with  them,  the  living  source 
of  prophecy  had  ceased  to  flow.  .  .  .  The  fathers,  however,  in  their 
opinions  respecting  inspiration,  wavered  between  a  more  and  less 
strict  view.  .  .  .  All,  however,  insisted  on  the  practical  importance  of 
the  Scripture,  its  richness  of  divine  wisdom  clothed  in  unadorned 
simplicity,  and  its  fitness  to  promote  the  edification  of  believers."1 

Justin  Martyr,  speaking  of  the  wonderful  teachings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  remarks:  "The  divine  plectrum,  itself  descending  from 
heaven,  makes  use  of  holy  men,  as  a  harp  or  lyre,  to  reveal  to  us 
the  knowledge  of  divine  and  heavenly  things."2  He  seems,  how 
ever,  to  have  limited  inspiration  to  what  is  religious,  and  necessary 
to  be  known  in  order  to  salvation ;  and  while  he  expresses  himself 
strongly  on  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  believes  also  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  New,  especially  of  the  evangelists.  The  views 
of  Irenseus  on  the  same  subject  were  strict :  "  The  Scriptures  are, 
indeed,  perfect  since  they  were  uttered  by  the  word  of  God  and 
his  Spirit."' 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  speaking  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  re 
marks  :'  "  Justly  could  we  call  the  apostles  prophets  and  Testimony  of 
righteous  men,  since  one  and  the  same  Holy  Spirit  works  ^ lnjren^m" 
in  all  of  them."  4  Irenaeus  speaks  of  Paul's  frequent  use  and  others. 
of  hyperbata.  "  He  attributes  this  peculiarity  of  Paul's  style,"  says  Ne- 
ander,  "  to  the  crowd  of  thoughts  pressing  for  utterance  from  his  ar 
dent  mind,"  showing  that  he  made  a  distinction  between  the  divine 
and  the  human  element  in  inspiration. 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  observes  :  "  Respecting  the  right 
eousness  which  the  law  teaches,  both  the  prophets  and  the  gospels 
are  found  to  agree,  because  they  all  (the  writers)  spoke  inspired  by 
the  one  Spirit  of  God."  ' 

Origen,  the  most  illustrious  scholar  of  the  early  post-apostolic 

1  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Christian  Doctrines,  Smith's  ed.,  vol.  i,  p.  87. 

'  *lv'  avrb  TO  tietov  eg  ovpavov  Karibv  irhrjicTpov,  d)a7rcp  bpydvp  Ki"dapa.£  rtvoc  rj  Avpof, 
roZs-  dmat  Kf  uvipdoi  xpupevov,  TIJV  TUV  deiuv  rjfuv  nal  ovpaviuv  airoKaXfyy  yvuaiv.— 
Cohort,  ad  Graces,  §  8. 

•  Scripturae  quidem  perfect*  sunt  quippe  a  verbo  Dei  et  Spiritu  ejus  dictae.— 
A  iver.  Harct.,  ii,  cap.  xxviii,  §  2. 

4  Upo^TOf  yap  fyza  KCU  diKatovf  dvai  rove  arroffro^ovf  teyovres  ev  av  tliroipev,  ivof 
nat  TOV  avrcv  tvspyovvroc  dta  irdvruv  dyiov  irvcvparoc. — Strom.,  liber  v,  cap.  vi. 

•  'En  pi*  KOI  nepl  tiKaioavvw  W  ^  vofiof  dprjKtv  d/coAovtfa  tdplaKerai  KO.I  ra  r<3v 
•npofyyuv  KOI  TLJV  evayyeMuv,  IXELV  ^  ™  ™vf  Trdiraf  jn>evuaTo$6povz  hi  irvevpart 
6eov  7^akrjKi vat. — Ad.  Autolycum,  liber  iii,  §  12. 


2d  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Church,  remarks  :'"  Certainly,  the  Holy  Spirit  inspired  each  one  of 
those  holy  men,  whether  they  were  prophets  or  apostles ;  and  that 
there  was  not  one  spirit  in  the  ancients  and  another  in  those  who 
were  inspired  at  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  most  clearly  proclaimed 
in  the  Churches."1  He  also  remarks  :  "All  the  Scriptures  are  in 
spired  by  the  Holy  Spirit."2 

Hagenbach  remarks :  "  It  appears  that  Origen,  with  all  his  exag 
gerated  views  of  inspiration,  also  admitted  that  there  were  uninspired 
passages  in  the  Scripture,  and  thus  distinguished  between  its  divine 
and  human  elements."*  "In  general,"  says  Gieseler,  "Origen  ap 
pears  to  understand  by  inspiration,  not  the  pouring  in  of  foreign 
thoughts,  but  an  exaltation  of  the  soul,  whereby  prophets  were  ele 
vated  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  and  this  view  was  held  fast  in 
the  school  of  Origen." 

Chrysostom,  commenting  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  says:  "Let  us 
no  longer  listen  to  the  fisherman,  or  to  the  son  of  Zebedee,  but  to 
the  Spirit  that  knows  the  deep  things  of  God,  and  strikes  the  apostle 
as  a  lyre.  For  he  will  tell  us  nothing  that  is  human,  but  will  speak 
to  us  of  spiritual  depths."4  Yet  when  commenting  on  Matthew,  he 
observes :  "  The  evangelists  are  shown  to  disagree  in  many  places  ; 
but  this  circumstance  itself  is  the  greatest  proof  of  their  truth.  For 
if  they  had  accurately  agreed  in  all  things  respecting  times  and 
places,  and  in  their  very  words,  none  of  our  enemies  would  have  be 
lieved  that  they  had  not  written  from  human  concert.  For  they 
would  not  have  supposed  that  so  much  harmony  grew  out  of  the  sim 
ple  truth.  But,  as  it  is,  the  apparent  disagreement  in  small  things 
frees  them  from  all  suspicion,  and  clearly  vindicates  the  character  of 
the  writers."6 

Augustine  compares   the   apostles  to  hands,   which  wrote  what 

1  Sane  quod  iste  Spiritus  unum  quemque  sanctorum,  vel  prophetarum,  vel  apos- 
tolorum  inspiravit,  et  non  alius  spiritus  in  veteribus,  alius  vero  in  his  qui  in  adventu 
Christi  inspirati  sunt,  fuerit,  manifestissime  in  ecclesiis  praedicatur. — IIep2 
liber  i,  §  4. 

1  In  Psalmos,  527.  8  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  vol.  i,  p.  91. 

4  'Gf  ovv  ovxeTi  TOV  cAiewf,  ovfe  TOV  v'tov  Zf/?c(fat'ou,  dAAd  TOV  TO,  fia&ri  TOV  0ecw 
,  TOV  Ilveti/zarof  Aeyw,  TOVTIJV  avaKpovoftivov  TTJV  Mpav,  ovTug  aKovcjfi€v.  Ovder  yap 
i]ulv  £pei,  uAA'  airb  TUV  aflvoauv  TUV  TrvevpaTtKuv. — In  Joan.,  horn,  i,  S  2, 
yap  SiaQuvovvrec  eAey^ovrat.  AVTO  (j,ev  ovv  TOVTO  [Meytarov  felypa  rv/i 
kariv.  El  yap  ndvia  avvetyuvrjaav  //era  aicpipelac,  Kal  fiexpi  Kaipov, 
TOTTOV,  KOI  ftexpi  faiuiTuv  avTuv,  ovdeie  &v  emarevas  TUV  £x$puv,  6rt  py  av 
&TTO  avv&riKTjc  Tivoj-  avdpuirtvTjc  eypaipav  uirep  iypa^av  ;  ov  yap  elvai 
Tooavri/v  cvfi^uviav.  Nwvt  «Je  /cat  rj  doKovaa  iv  ftiKpolf  dvat  dtafavia  TTU<JTK 
rei  avrovf  vnoipiac,  KOI  TiOfnrpuf  virep  TOV  rpoTrov  TUV  ypa^dvrwv  a 
Mat.,  horn,  i,  §  2 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  27 

Christ,  the  head,  dictated.1  He  calls  the  holy  Scriptures  the  ven 
erable  writing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  declares  that  he  must  firmly 
believes  that  none  of  their  authors  has  written  any  thing  that  is 
erroneous.' 

Jerome,  while  holding  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  did  not 
overlook  the  human  element,  and  in  commenting  on  Gal.  v,  12,  "I 
would  they  were  even  cut  off  which  trouble  you,"  remarks  :  "  Nor  is 
it  strange  if  the  apostle,  as  a  man,  and  still  shut  up  in  a  frail  vessel, 
;md  seeing  another  law  bringing  him  into  captivity,  and  or  Jerome  and 
leading  him  into  the  law  of  sin,  once  uttered  such  Chrysostom. 
language,  into  which  we  often  see  holy  men  fall."  '  He  also  says  he 
finds  solecisms  and  transpositions  of  words  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.4 
Theodore,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  "assumed,"  says 
Hagenbach,  "  different  degrees  of  inspiration.  He  ascribed  to  Sol 
omon,  not  the  gift  of  prophecy,  but  only  that  of  wisdom,  and  judged 
of  the  Book  of  Job  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  only  from  the  human 
point  of  view."  ' 

Though  the  Reformers  submitted  in  faith  to  the  authority  of  Scrip 
ture  as  a  divine  revelation,  they  also  had  an  unprejudiced  regard  to 
its  human  side,  taking  a  comprehensive  view  of  inspiration,  espe 
cially  in  its  practical  bearing.  The  Catholic  Church  in  general 
held  firmly  to  inspiration.  Luther's  expressions  on  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures  were  very  strong.  Among  other  things,  he  says 
that  we  must  look  upon  the  Scripture  "as  if  God  him-  Of  Luther  Me_ 
self  had  spoken  therein."  Yet  he  seems  to  have  con-  lanchthon,  and 
ceded  historical  contradictions  between  the  Pentateuch 
and  Stephen's  speech.  Melanchthon,  too,  only  claims  freedom  from 
error  in  the  apostles  as  to  doctrine,  but  not  in  the  application  of 
doctrine.  Calvin  also  asserted  in  the  strongest  manner  the  divine 
authority  and  inspiration  of  the  holy  Scriptures.6 

The  question  of  the  amount  of  divine  inspiration  in  the  Bible 
is  of  a  grave  and  important  character,  and  here  the  words  of  the 
poet  are  especially  applicable,  "  The  middle  course  is  the  safest." 

1  Quando  quidem  membra  ejus  operata  sunt,  dictante  capite. — Cons.  Evang.,  i,  35. 

*  Soleis  eis  scripturarum  libris  qui  jam  canonic!  appellantur,  didlci  hunc  timorem 
honoremque  deferre  ut  nullum  eorum  auctorem  scribendo  aliquid  errasse  firmissime 
ciedam. — Epis.  82.  cap.  i,  §  3. 

'  Nee  minim  esse  si  Apostolus,  ut  homo,  et  adhuc  vasculo  clausus  infirmo,  videns- 
que  aliam  legem  in  corpore  suo  captivantem  se,  et  ducentem  in  lege  peccati,  seme] 
fuerit  hoc  locutus,  in  quod  frequenter  sanctos  viros  cadere  perspicimus. 

4  Nos  quoties  cumque  soloecismos  aut  tale  quid  annotavimvs,  et  cetera. — Com* 
men.  Epis.  Eph.t  cap.  iii. 

*  Hist.  Christ.  Doctrines,  vol.  i,  321. 
•Cf.  ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  240-243. 


28  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

The  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  in  every  part  of  the  sacred  Scrip, 
tures  would  give  them  more  sanctity  and  authority;  but  even  if 
we  could  determine  with  complete  certainty  the  original  reading  in 
every  case,  the  mass  of  the  Christian  world  who  read  the  Scrip- 
Amount  of  in-  tures  in  translations  would  not  be  profited  by  verbal 
Bpiration.  inspiration.  But  it  is  very  inconvenient  to  the  bib 
lical  interpreter,  apart  from  its  being  in  many  cases  useless,  for  it 
compels  him  to  reconcile  every  discrepancy,  however  trifling,  and  to 
vindicate  the  grammatical  accuracy  of  every  word  and  sentence  in 
the  sacred  canon,  which,  in  not  a  few  instances,  is  a  difficult  task, 
and  rarely  satisfies  the  candid  reader.  On  the  other  hand,  lax  views 
of  inspiration  may  strip  the  Bible  of  a  great  deal  of  its  authority  as 
a  divine  revelation,  and  resolve  much  of  it  into  mere  human  opinion. 
In  considering  the  inspiration  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Bible 
we  must  carefully  distinguish  between  the  inspiration  of  the  writers 
and  that  of  the  speakers  whose  discourses  are  recorded.  The  book 
may  be  inspired  but  not  the  speaker,  or  both  speaker  and  writer 
may  be  inspired.  This  remark  applies  with  special  force  to  the  Book 
of  Job ;  and  if  we  allow  this  work  to  be  genuine  history  in  all  its  parts, 
and  that  its  author  was  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  write  accurate 
ly  every  speech  made  by  Job  and  his  friends,  nevertheless  all  these 
speeches  might  contain  more  or  less  false  doctrine. 

REQUIREMENTS  OF  THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS. 

Respecting  the  kind  and  the  amount  of  inspiration  in  the  canon 
ical  books,  we  must  consider  what  the  nature  of  each  book  requires. 
In  writing  the  Pentateuch,  Moses  would  need  inspiration  in  narrat- 
Extentofins  i  in&  *ne  n^story  °f  tne  world  before  his  own  times.  If 
ration  needed  he  had  written  documents  lying  before  him,  or  possessed 
merely  the  traditions  of  his  ancestors,  he  still  needed  a 
divine  guidance  to  enable  him  to  distinguish  true  history.  The 
account  of  creation  must  have  come  to  Moses  or  to  some  one  of  his 
ancestors  by  divine  revelation.  As  the  founder  of  a  religious  sys 
tem  for  the  most  part  new,  and  as  a  prophet,  he  required  immediate 
divine  guidance. 

Yet  there  may  have  been  some  unimportant  points,  in  which  he 
followed  his  own  judgment  or  the  advice  of  friends.  We  find  upon 
a  certain  occasion  that  Jethro,  the  father-in-law  of  Moses,  visited 
him,  and,  observing  him  sitting  in  judgment  on  small  cases  as  well 
as  on  large  ones,  he  remarked,  "  The  thing  that  thou  doest  is  not 
good.  Thou  wilt  surely  wear  away,  both  thou  and  this  people  that  is 
with  thee  •  for  this  thing  is  too  heavy  for  thee  :  thou  art  not  able  to 


OF   THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  29 

perform  it  thyself  alone  "  He  advised  him  to  appoint  judges  to  de 
cide  small  controversies,  while  the  most  important  causes  should  be 
brought  to  Moses  himself.  This  advice  Moses  followed.1 

The  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  being  merely  historical  in  their  char- 
acter,  would  require  at  most  in  their  authors  merely  the  divine 
guidance  to  enable  them  to  give  a  correct  narrative  of  events.  In 
history  of  a  merely  civil,  and,  in  some  cases,  of  a  religious  char 
acter,  specific  inspiration  is  not  demanded,  and  a  well-informed  man 
could  himself  write  it  with  sufficient  accuracy.  The  Psalms  being 
of  a  doctrinal  as  well  as  of  a  devotional  character,  and  some  of  them 
being  Messianic  and  prophetic,  require  full  inspiration.2  The 
Proverbs  of  Solomon  and  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  also,  being  doc 
trinal,  require  inspiration.  The  question  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Book  of  Job  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  will  be  considered  in  the 
introduction  to  these  books. 

The  prophetical  books  of  the  Bible  demand  the  highest  degree  of 
inspiration,  as  their  authors  are  not  only  teachers  of  AH  prophecy 
moral  truth,  but  boldly  predict  the  future,  which  none 
but  the  Omniscient  God  can  clearly  foresee.  Gesenius  ration, 
defines  the  word  N'33,3  vates,  a  prophet,  one  who,  impelled  by  a  di 
vine  influence  or  by  the  divine  Spirit,  rebukes  kings  and  nations, 
and  predicts  future  events.  With  the  conception  of  a  prophet,  there 
was  also,  primarily,  connected  the  idea  that  he  spoke  not  his  own 
thoughts,  but  what  he  received  from  God,  and  that  he  was  the  am 
bassador  and  interpreter  of  God ;  as  is  evident  from  Exod.  vii,  i, 
where  God  says  to  Moses :  "  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh ; 
and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy  prophet."  Here  it  is  clear  that 
Aaron  was  to  utter  faithfully  the  words  of  Moses. 

The  divine  communication  was  often  made  to  the  prophets  in 
a  vision,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  by  the  various  names  of  n&oo, 
nmn,  jun,  rwn,  jr-Tn,  and  hence  the  prophet  is  sometimes  called 
run,  HtfS,  a  seer,  one  who  sees.  God  says :  "  If  there  be  a  prophet 
among  you,  /  the  LORD  will  make  myself  known  unto  him  in  a  vision, 
and  will  speak  unto  him  in  a  dream."  Num.  xii,  6.  Visions  of  the 
future  condition  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches,  and  of  the 

1  See  Exodus  xviii,  13-26. 

•  And  so  Peter  in  the  Acts  (chap,  i,  16)  declares,  in  quoting  Psalms  Ixix,  cix,  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  spake  by  the  mouth  of  David." 

•ihis  word  is  derived  from  MU,  Niphal  i<3p  passive,  which  Gesenius  defines,  to 
speak  under  divine  influence,  the  passive  form  being  used  because  the  prophets  were 
moved  by  a  divine  power. 


30  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDV 

different  cities  and  nations  standing  in  a  close  relation  to  the  Israel 
ites,  were  presented  to  the  prophets  by  the  divine  Spirit.  The  Apos 
tle  John,  after  quoting  a  passage  from  Isaiah,  remarks:  "These 
things  said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  his  glory,  and  spake  of  him."  Chap, 
xii,  41.  And  the  Prophet  Daniel  says  :  "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions, 
and,  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before 
him."  Chap,  vii,  13.  So  also  the  Apostle  John,  as  recorded  in  the 
Apocalypse,  saw  in  visions  the  overthrow  of  paganism,  the  final  tri 
umph  of  Christianity,  a  general  judgment,  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked,  and  the  future  glory  of  the  saints.  To  Moses,  also,  was  ex 
hibited  in  vision  the  form  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture.  "  And 
look  that  thou  make  them  after  their  pattern  which  was  showed  thee 
[which  thou  wast  made  to  s?e]  in  the  mount."  Exod.  xxv,  40.  The 
prophets,  we  may  suppose,  would  write  down  these  wonderful  vis 
ions  in  their  own  language.  Nor  need  we  be  surprised  if,  in  these 
circumstances,  their  transitions  are  sometimes  sudden,  their  style 
abrupt,  and  their  expressions  occasionally  ungrammatical.  It  is 
impossible,  in  this  ecstatic  state,  not  to  speak  and  write  in  a  lofty  and 
symbolic  style.  The  human  spirit  labours  to  give  utterance  to  its 
magnificent  conceptions ;  language  is  taxed  to  its  utmost ;  and  the 
mind,  excited  to  the  highest  degree  of  tension,  seizes  upon  what 
ever  will  express  its  deep  emotions.  In  this  way,  perhaps,  we  may 
account  for  the  fact  that  the  prophet  Ezekiel  is  careless  in  his  gram 
matical  forms.  He  had  more  visions  than  any  other  prophet,  and 
was  oftener  in  the  ecstatic  state.  In  this  way,  too,  may  be  ex 
plained,  in  part  at  least,  the  irregularity  of  a  part  of  the  Greek  of 
the  Apocalypse. 

But  it  was  not  by  vision  only  that  God  manifested  himself  to  the 
prophets  of  old.  He  "  spake  in  divers  manners."  Heb.  i,  i.  The  spir 
it  of  Christ  in  the  prophets  predicted  the  future  glory  of  Messiah's 
kingdom,  i  Pet.  i,  n.  In  this  case  the  very  words  may  have  been 
inspired  ;  at  least,  the  suggestions  were  communicated  to  the  mind. 

The  inspiration  of  the  apostles  as  evangelists  consists  principally  in 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  bringing  to  their  minds  every  thing  our 
iles*  Saviour  spoke  to  them,  according  to  the  promise  he  had 
made  to  his  disciples.  John  xiv,  26.  Mark  was  very  probably  an  eye 
witness  of  the  scenes  in  our  Lord's  history,  and  a  companion  of  Peter, 
as  the  ancient  Church  testifies ;  and  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul 
wrote  the  history  of  Christ  as  it  had  been  delivered  to  him  by  the  eye 
witnesses  of  Christ's  ministry.  The  inspiration  of  these  two  evangel 
ists,  who  were  not  apostles,  we  may  suppose  extended  only  so  far  as  to 
enable  them  to  give  a  true  account  of  the  works  and  the  teachings 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  31 

of  Christ.  In  the  evangelists,  seeming  discrepancies  in  minor  points 
may,  after  all,  grow  naturally  out  of  the  reality  of  things;  but  we  are 
not  required  to  make  the  absolute  correctness  of  the  evangelists  in  the 
most  unimportant  matters  an  article  of  faith,  and  to  resort  to  far 
fetched  explanations  to  reconcile  every  apparent  discrepancy.  The 
Apostolical  Epistles,  teaching  and  discussing  Christian  doctrine,  re 
quire  inspiration  to  keep  them  free  from  all  error.  The  Apocalypse 
of  John  is  principally  a  prophetic  book,  written  at  the  command  of 
Christ,  who  revealed  its  contents  to  the  apostle  in  visions. 

The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  evident  from  its  sublime  doctrines 
concerning  God,  the  purity  of  its  moral  precepts,  and  Evldenoeg  of 
from  the  wonderful  fulfilment  of  its  prophecies.  The  the  inspiration 
Bible  presents  to  us  a  wonderful  plan.  Abraham,  origi-  JJoctrmesf  etn- 


nally  an  idolater,1  is  called  out  of  Mesopotamia,  and   Ics'    prophetic 

-     I  .         .  .         .     A  .      .  .  ,     .     ..       *     .       f       ...         fuinilments. 

God  promises  him  that  in  his  seed  shall  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  be  blessed.  His  posterity,  after  sojourning  in  Egypt 
several  centuries,  are  led  out  by  Moses,  who  becomes  their  legislator 
in  the  Sinaitic  desert.  Joshua  brings  the  Hebrews  into  the  promised 
land,  and  establishes  them  there.  The  Almighty,  later,  sent  prophets 
among  them  at  different  periods  to  instruct  and  warn  them,  to  en- 
rorce  the  great  principles  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  to  announce  the 
fate  of  the  surrounding  kingdoms  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah. 

The  doctrine  of  the  unity  and  the  holiness  of  God  is   ^ 
the  fundamental  doctrine  proclaimed  by  Moses  and  the    the  holiness  of 
prophets.     It  came  by  divine  revelation  to  Abraham.    God> 
The  ancient  world  could  never  have  discovered  the  unity  of  God  ;  it 
had  not  the  wide  view  of  the  universe  that  we  now  have,  in  which 
we  see  everywhere  a  unity  of  plan.     Nor  did  Moses  de-   Pian  in  neve- 
rive  the  doctrine  from  Egypt,  for  the  ancient  Egyptians   latlon- 
were  polytheists.    And  so  far  was  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  God  from 
being  original  with  the  Hebrew  people,  that  there  were  times  when 
nearly  all  of  them  relapsed  into  idolatry  ;  and  it  required  the  sever 
est  chastisements  from  God,  and  his  continual  intervention  through 
prophets,  armed  with  miraculous  powers,  to  keep  it  alive  among 
them. 

The  religions  of  antiquity  were  characterized  by  the  foulest  su 
perstitions,  and  generally  by  the  most  revolting  impurities  and  most 
cruel  rites,  from  which  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  is  entirely 
free.  Moses  and  the  prophets  inculcate,  in  the  clearest  and  strong- 

141  Your  fathers  dwelt  on  the  other  side  of  the  flood  [the  river  Euphrates]  in  old 
time,  even  Terah,  the  father  of  Abraham,  and  the  father  of  Nahor  :  and  they  served 
other  gods."  Josh,  xxiv,  2. 


32  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

est  manner,  the  holiness  of  God.  Indeed,  the  legislation  of  Moses  is 
especially  directed  to  this  point. 

The  predictions  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  both  in  respect  to  a 
Messiah  and  to  the  fate  of  cities  and  kingdoms  contiguous  to  the  Is 
raelites,  and  respecting  the  Hebrew  people  themselves,  have  no 
parallel  in  history  ;  and  the  number  of  these  prophecies,  and  their 
accuracy,  entirely  exclude  the  hypothesis  of  accident,  or  mere  human 
Hebrew  inter-  foresight.1  We  know  that  the  ancient  Jews  explained  the 
th?aMessian°c  prophecies  which  we  consider  Messianic  in  the  same  way 
prophecies.  that  we  do.  This  is  evident  from  the  Targums  of  On- 
kelos  and  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel.  At  the  time  predicted  by  the  proph 
ets  the  Messiah  appears  in  the  land  of  Israel,  teaching  the  most 
sublime  doctrines  respecting  God  and  his  worship,  and  the  noblest 
precepts,  which  he  beautifully  illustrated  in  his  holy,  active  life,  es 
tablishing  his  claims  as  Messiah  by  the  clearest  proofs ;  and  having 
been  crucified  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  he  rises  from 
the  dead  and  commissions  his  apostles  to  go  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  after  which  he  ascends  to 
heaven.  About  thirty-seven  years  after  he  had  been  crucified,  the 
mass  of  the  Jews  still  persisting  in  rejecting  him,  Jerusalem  was  de 
stroyed  by  the  Roman  army  under  Titus;  the  temple  was  laid  in 
ruins,  according  to  the  prediction  of  Christ ;  and  the  Jews  were  scat 
tered  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven.  In  the  meanwhile  the  religion  of 
Christ  continued  to  spread  rapidly;  and,  after  the  fiercest  conflict 
with  Paganism,  in  three  centuries  it  became  the  religion  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  is  now  the  creed  of  the  noblest  part  of  the  human  race,  and 
gives  strong  indications  of  mastering  the  world.  This  great  scheme 
of  revelation  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  annals  of  our  race. 

When  we  see  a  plan  running  through  the  whole  universe,  both  in 
time  and  space,  extending  to  the  organization  of  the  meanest  insect, 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  there  is  no  plan  in  the  moral  world,  no 
provision  for  the  redemption  of  the  race.  There  must  be  a  plan, 
and  Christianity  is  that  plan,  or  there  is  none. 

1  The  only  passage  in  the  Koran  resembling  a  prophecy  is  in  chap,  xxx  :  "  The 
Greeks  have  been  overcome  in  the  nearest  part  of  the  land  ;  but  after  their  defeat 
they  shall  overcome  within  a  few  years."  "  That  this  prophecy  was  exactly  full 
filled,"  says  Sale,  "  the  [Mohammedan]  commentators  fail  not  to  observe,  (hough  they 
do  not  exactly  agree  in  the  accounts  they  give  of  its  accomplishment." 


OF  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  33 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   CANON    OF    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT. 

A  S  early  as  the  second  century  we  find  the  phraseology  "  Old ' 
"•  and  "  New  Testament,"  employed  to  designate  the  Jewish  and 
the  Christian  revelations,1  but  its  application  to  the  Names  desig- 

books  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Covenant  is  first  clearly   natin» th?  ooi- 

lection  of  the 

seen  in  Melito,2  Bishop  of  Sardis,  in  the  last  half  of  the    sacred    Writ- 
second  century,  and  in  Origen3  in  the  first  half  of  the    mgs* 
third  century.     The  term  canon,4  as  applied  to  the  sacred  writings 
of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  came  into  use  near  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.5 

The  earliest  known  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  given  by  Melito.  In  writing  to  Onesimus,  he  states  that  he  had 
made  diligent  inquiry  to  learn  accurately  the  number  and  the  order 
of  the  ancient  books.  "  Accordingly,"  says  he,  "  having  gone  to  the 
East,  and  as  far  as  the  place  where  (these  things)  were  preached  and 
done,  and  having  ascertained  accurately  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  I  herewith  send  them  to  you,  of  which  these  are  the  names : 
Five  Books  of  Moses — Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deu- 

1  New  Testament,  Justin,  Dial,  cum  Tryp.,  sec.  II,  12  ;  New  Testament  and  the 
Old,  Irenaeus  ad  Haere.,  liber  iv,  cap.  9  ;  Old  Testament  and  New,  Clem.  Alex. 
Paed.,  liber  i,  cap.  7  ;  Old  and  New  Testament,  Tertul.,  adver.  Mar.,  liber  iv, 
cap.  xxii. 

*  He  speaks  of  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccles.,  liber  iv,  26. 

1  Origen  remarks  on  the  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament,  torn,  xv,  §  14,  on 
Matthew.  He  also  observes  that  the  New  Testament  gives  a  Greek  form  to  He 
brew  names.  On  Joan,  torn,  ii,  §  27. 

4  The  principal  definitions  of  this  Greek  word  (/cavwv),  given  by  Liddell  and  Scott, 
are  the  following :  I.  A  straight  rod  or  bar ;  2.  A  rule  or  line  used  by  carpenters 
or  masons.  Metaphorically  :  I.  A  rule  in  a  moral  sense  ;  2.  In  the  Alexandrian 
Grammarians,  collections  of  the  old  Greek  authors  were  called  «avovec,  as  being  mod 
els  of  excellence,  classics  ;  3.  In  the  Church,  /cavovef  were  the  books  received  as  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice — canonical  Scriptures. 

6  The  term  canon  is  applied  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  §  1105 
of  his  Works.  Augustine  speaks  of  the  sacred  writings  as  canonical  books  (canonic! 
libri)  and  canonical  Scriptures  (Scripturae  canonicae).  Epist.  82,  14,  22.  Athanasius 
calls  the  Holy  Scriptures,  "Books  that  are  canonical  and  believed  to  be  divine." — 
Epist.  39,  on  the  Passover.  Jerome  in  various  places  speaks  of  a  canon  of  Scripture. 
VOL.  I.— 3 


34  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

teronomy ;  Joshua  Nave,  Judges,  Ruth  ;  Four  Books  of  Kings,  Two 
Books  of  Chronicles,  Psalms  of  David,  Proverbs  of  Solomon  (which 
is  also  called  Wisdom),  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Job;  of  the 
prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah ;  of  the  Twelve  Prophets  in  one  book — 
Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra."1  We  miss  in  this  catalogue  the  Book  of 
Esther.  In  Ezra,  Nehemiah  is,  no  doubt,  included,  as  Jerome  in 
forms  us  that  these  two  books  were  included  in  one  volume,  which 
was  called  Ezra.2 

In  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  we  have  the  canonical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  held  by  the  learned  Origen.  "  There  are 
twenty-two  books,"  says  he,  "  according  to  the  Hebrews,  correspond 
ing  to  the  number  of  the  letters  of  their  alphabet."  He  then  enu 
merates  the  various  books,  giving  both  the  Hebrew  and 
iogueofScanon-  Greek  names  :  Five  Books  of  Moses;  Joshua;  Judges 
and  Ruth  in  one  volume  among  the  Hebrews ;  First  and 
Second  Books  of  Kings  in  one  volume,  called  Samuel  with  the  He 
brews;  Third  and  Fourth  Books  of  Kings  in  one  volume;  Two  Books 
of  Chronicles  in  one  volume;  First  and  Second  Ezra  in  one  volume, 
which  they  call  Ezra ;  Book  of  Psalms  ;  Proverbs  of  Solomon ;  Eccle 
siastes;  Song  of  Songs;  Isaiah;  Jeremiah,  with  Lamentations  and 
Epistle  in  one  volume,  which  they  call  Jeremiah  ;  Daniel ;  Ezekiel ; 
Job ;  Esther ;  besides  these,  the  Books  of  Maccabees,  inscribed  Sarbeth 
Sarbane  "EL.3  This  list  is  preserved  by  Eusebius  (Eccles.  Hist.,  book 
vi,  25)  from  Origen's  lost  Commentary  on  the  First  Psalm.  In  this 
catalogue  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  forming  one  book,  are  wanting. 
This  must  have  been  an  accidental  omission  on  the  part  of  Origen  or 
Eusebius,  or  in  copying  the  latter;  for  Origen  wrote  a  Commentary  on 
the  Twelve  (Minor)  Prophets,  of  which  only  twenty-five  books  were 
found  by  Eusebius.  (Eccl.  Hist.,  book  vi,  36.)  The  Twelve  Minor 
Prophets,  in  one  book,  would  make  the  number  of  the  sacred  books 
twenty- two,  and  the  Maccabees  would  not  be  in  the  canon.  We 
might  suppose  that  the  extract  of  Eusebius  does  not  correctly  rep 
resent  the  views  of  Origen.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  Origen  quotes 
2  Maccabees  vii  as  Scripture,  as  follows  :  "  But  that  we  may  also, 
from  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  believe  that  these  things  are  so, 
hea-  how  in  the  books  of  the  Maccabees,  where  the  mother  of  seven 
martyrs  exhorts  one  of  her  sons  to  endure  the  torments."*  The  books 

'In  Eusebius,  Eccles.  Hist.,  liber  iv,  26. 

'Apud  Hebneos  Ezrse  Neemiaeque  sermones  in  unum  volumen  coarctantut. — 
Preface  to  his  translation  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

'  The  name  which  Origen  here  gives  the  Maccabees  is  for  the  Hebrew 
^K  'Wto,  prince  of  the  temple,  prince  of  the  children  of  God. 

4  Tltpi  Ap^wv,  liber  ii,  cap.  i,  from  the  Latin  version  of  Rufinus. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  35 

of  Maccabees  were  regarded  with  great  favour  by  some  of  the  most 
eminent  of  the  earlier  fathers,  doubtless  because  they  encouraged  the 
spirit  of  martyrdom. 

The  catalogue  of  Hilary,1  Bishop  of  Poitiers,  in  France,  is  the 
same  as  that  of  Origen,  except  that  it  includes  the  Twelve  Minor 
Prophets,  and  omits  the  Maccabees  altogether ;  but  he  remarks, 
"  Some  add  Tobias  and  Judith."  He  gives  twenty  books  in  all,  ex- 
eluding  every  Apocryphal  book  except  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah. 
Athanasius  (f  A.  D.  373)  gives  us  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  he  rejects  from  the  canon  the  Book  of  Es 
ther,  and  adds  to  it,  with  the  Lamentations,  the  Book  of  Baruch 
and  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah.2  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  (f  A.  D. 
386),  states  that  the  number  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
twenty-two.  His  canonical  books  are  the  same  as  ours,  except  that 
he  adds  to  Jeremiah,  with  the  Lamentations,  the  Book  of  Baruch  and 
the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah.3 

Gregory  Nazianzen  (f  about  A.  D.  390)  omits  from  his  catalogue 
the  Book  of  Esther,  observing,  however,  that  some  add  this  to  the 
other  books  of  the  canon  ;  otherwise  his  catalogue  does  not  differ 
from  ours,  as  his  First  and  Second  Ezra  are  doubtless  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah ;  and  his  Chronicles  are,  no  doubt,  our  two  Books  of 
Chronicles.4  Epiphanius,  metropolitan  Bishop  of  Cyprus  (f  A.  D. 
402),  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  age,  gives  us  the  catalogue 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  following  order  :  Genesis, 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  Joshua  the  catalogue  of 
son  of  Nave  (Nun),  Job,  Judges,  Ruth,  Psalms,  First  and  Epiphanius. 
Second  Chronicles,  First  Book  of  Samuel  or  First  of  Kings,  Second 
Samuel  or  Second  Kings,  Third  Book  of  Kings,  Fourth  Book  of 
Kings,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  The  Twelve  (Minor) 
Prophets,  The  Prophet  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  Lamentations,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  First  Book  of  Ezra,  Second  Book  of  Ezra,  and  Esther.4  We 
have  given  but  one  name  to  each  book,  though  wherever  the  Hebrew 
name  differs  from  the  Greek  Epiphanius  gives  both  names.  It  will 
be  observed  that  there  is  no  apocryphal  book  in  this  list,  the  Second 
Ezra  being  put  for  Nehemiah.  Nor  do  we  miss  any  of  our  canonical 
books. 

Of  all  the  fathers  of  the  earlier  Church  Jerome  was  the  greatest 
Hebrew  scholar,  and  the  best  versed  in  the  literature  of  the  Jews, 

1  About  A.  D.  365.     Prologue  to  the  Book  of  Psalms. 

"  Epistle  39,  on  the  Feast  of  the  Passover. 

'  Catechesis  iv,  de  Decem  Dogmatibus,  cap.  35. 

4  Carminum,  liber  ii. 

*  Liber  de  Mensuris  et  Ponderibus,  cap.  23. 


36  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

His  testimony  as  to  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is,  therefore,  very 
valuable.  In  the  preface  to  his  translation  of  the  two  Books  of  Sam 
uel  and  of  the  two  Books  of  Kings  he  furnishes  a  catalogue  of  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  arranged  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  giving  both 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  or  Latin  name  of  each.  He  gives,  first, 
Jerome's  cata-  the  five  Books  of  Moses,  which  he  says  are  called  To- 
logue.  RAH — LAW  The  second  division,  he  says,  is  that  of  the 

PROPHETS,  and  he  begins  with  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.  Next  comes 
the  Book  of  Judges,  with  that  of  Ruth  in  the  same  volume.  The 
third  book  is  that  of  Samuel,  called  First  and  Second  of  Kings  with  us. 
The  fourth  book  is  that  of  Kings,  contained  in  the  third  and  fourth 
volume  of  Kings ;  fifth.  Isaiah  ;  sixth,  Jeremiah ;  seventh,  Ezekiel. 
Then  come  the  Twelve  (Minor)  Prophets.  The  third  division, 
says  he,  contains  the  'Ayt6ypa0a,  (HAGIOGRAPHA,  Holy  Writings), 
The  first  book  is  Job  ;  next,  Psalms  of  David,  in  one  volume;  three 
books  of  Solomon,  namely,  Proverbs.  Ecclesiastes,  and  Song  of  Songs ; 
Daniel;  First  and  Second  Chronicles;  Ezra  ;  and  the  ninth,  Esther. 
"  Thus  the  books  of  the  ancient  law,"  says  he,  "  are  twenty-two  : 
five  of  Moses,  eight  of  the  Prophets,  and  nine  of  the  Hagiographa; 
although  some  often  insert  Ruth  and  the  Lamentations  in  the  Hagi 
ographa,  .  .  .  and  thus  the  books  of  the  ancient  law  would  be  twenty- 
four."1  In  this  catalogue  are  all  the  books  that  we  have  in  our 

1  As  the  passage  is  of  vast  importance,  we  herewith  give  the  full  Latin  text : — 
"  Primus  apud  eos  liber  vocatur  BRESITH  (rP23&'"0),  quem  nosGenesim  dicimus. 
Secundus  ELLE  SMOTH  (m&B  r£»),  qui  Exodus  appellatur.  Tertius  VAJEC- 
RA  (snp*n),  id  est,  Leviticus.  Quartus  VAJEDABBER  (W1!),  quem  Numeros 
vocamus.  Quintus  ELLE  ADDABARIM  (Q">l2in  ni»),  qui  Deuteronomium 
praenotatur.  Hi  sunt  quinque  libri  Mosi,  quos  proprie  THORATH  (tlTlI")),  id  est, 
legem  appellant. 

"Secundum  Prophetarum  ordinem  faciunt ;  et  incipiunt  ab  Jesu  filio  Nave,  qui 
apud  eos  JOSUE  BEN  NUN  ("yw  p  5WP),  dicitur.  Deinde  subtexunt  SOPHTIM 
fe'WnD),  id  est,  Judicum  librum  ;  et  in  eumdem  compingunt  RUTH  (till),  quia 
in  diebus  judicum  facta  narratur  historia.  Tertius  sequitur  SAMUEL  (SwtiQD), 
quem  nos  Regnorum  primum  et  secundum  dicimus.  Quartus  MALACHIM 
(D^btt),  id  est,  Regum,  quam  MALACHOTH  (trO^te),  id  est,  Regnorum  dicere. 
Non  enim  multarum  gentium  regna  describit ;  sed  unius  Israelitici  populi,  qui  trib- 
ubtts  duodecim  continetur.  Quintus  ISAIAS  (rPSET).  Sextus  JEREMIAS 
(iTW^).  Septimus  JEZECIEL  £»ptm).  Octavus  liber  duodecim  Prophetarum, 
qui  apud  illos  vocatur  THARE  ASRA  (8"l02  "HD). 

"  Tertius  ordo  'A.-yidypafa  possidet ;  et  primus  liber  incipit  ab  JOB  p'PK). 
Secundus  a  David  (TH),  quem  quinque  incisionibus,  et  uno  Psalmorum  volumine 
ccmprehendnnt.  Tertius  est  SALAMON  (HS^D),  tres  libros  habens  :  Proverbia, 
quae  illi  Parabolas,  id  est,  MASALOTII  im^Efc)  appellant ;  Ecclesiasten,  id  est, 
COELETH  (nbnp);  Canticum  canticorum,  quem  titulo  SIR  ASSIRIM  (VE 
prsenotant.  Sextus  est  DANIEL  ("^H).  Septimus  DABRE  AJAMIM 
,  id  est,  verba  dierum,  quod  significantius  Xpovmbv  totius  divinse  his 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  37 

present  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  no  others ;  Nehemiah 
is  included  in  Ezra,  and  the  Lamentations  are  included  in  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah.  Jerome  remarks  on  this  catalogue  :  "  What 
ever  is  outside  of  these  must  be  placed  among  the  Apocrypha. 
Therefore  Wisdom,  which  is  commonly  inscribed  the  'Wisdom  of 
Solomon,'  and  the  Book  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  and  Judith,  and 
Tobias,  are  not  in  the  canon.  The  First  Book  of  Maccabees  I  have 
found  in  Hebrew.  The  Second  Book  is  in  Greek."1  He  observes, 
in  his  preface  to  Jeremiah,  that" The  Book  of  Baruch  has  no  exis 
tence  among  the  Hebrews,  and  the  spurious  Epistle  of  Jeremiah  I 
have  determined  should  be  by  no  means  commented  upon."3 

Furnished  with  this  definite  statement  respecting  the  Hebrew 
canon  (the  same  as  the  present  Hebrew  canon)  at  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century,  and  having  seen  the  views  of  the  most  emi 
nent  of  the  earlier  Fathers  upon  the  same  subject,  we  naturally 
turn  to  the  celebrated  Jewish  historian,  Flavius  Josephus,  born 
four  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ.  As  his  father  belonged 
to  the  family  of  the  priests,  and  as  he  himself  was  profoundly 
learned  in  the  antiquities  of  the  Jews,  he  possessed  every  facil 
ity  for  making  himself  master  of  the  history  of  the  Jewish  canon. 
"  For  we  have  not,"  says  he,  "  myriads  of  books,  discordant  and  con 
flicting,  but  only  twenty-two  books,  containing  the  history  of  all  time, 
which  are  justly  believed  to  be  divine.  Of  these,  five  be-  The  catalogue 
long  to  Moses,  which  contain  both  the  laws  and  the  tra-  of  Josephus. 
dition  of  the  origin  of  man  until  his  (Moses')  death,  a  period  little 
short  of  three  thousand  years.  From  the  death  of  Moses  until  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes,  who  was  king  of  the  Persians  after  Xerxes,  the 
prophets  after  Moses  wrote  in  thirteen  books  the  events  of  their  own 
times ;  the  remaining  four  books  contain  hymns  to  God  and  practical 
duties  for  men.  From  Artaxerxes  down  to  our  own  time  every  thing 
has  been  written,  but  (this  history)  has  not  been  deemed  worthy  of 

toriae  possumus  appellare.  Qui  liber  apud  nos  IlapaTieiiro^vuv,  primus  et  secundus 
inscribitur.  Octavus  EZRAS  (j^Yj),  [Al.  Elesdras],  qui  et  ipse  similiter  apud 
Giaecos  et  Latinos  in  duos  libros  divisus  est.  Nonus  ESTHER  ("inO!*).  Atque 
ita  fiunt  pariterveteris  legis  libri  viginti  duo  ;  id  est,  Mosi  quinque  ;  Prophetarum 
octo:  Hagiographorum  novem.  Quamquam  nonnulli  RUTH  (flTl)  et  CINOTH 
(na^p)  inter  'Aytoypa^a  scriptitent,  et  libros  hos  in  suo  putent  numero  supputandos  : 
w  per  hoc  esse  priscae  legis  libros  viginti  quattuor. 

1  Quid  extra  hos  est,  inter  anoKpvQa  esse  ponendum.  Igitur  Sapientia,  quse  vulgo 
Saloraonis  inscribitur,  et  Jesu  filii  Syrach  liber,  et  Judith  et  Tobias  et  Pastor,  non 
sunt  in  canone.  Machabaeorum  primum  librum,  Hebraicum  reperi,  secundus  Grae- 
cus  est. 

*  Libeilum  autem  Baruch  qui  vulgo  edition!  Septaaginta  copulatur,  nee  habetur 
apud  Hebreos,  et  •^evdeirlypa^ov  epistolam  Jeremiae  nequaquam  censui  disserendam. 


38  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

equal  confidence  with  our  previous  history  on  account  of  there  not 
having  been  an  exact  succession  of  prophets."1 

These  twenty-two  books  of  Josephus  (the  number  of  the  letters  of 
the  Hebrew  alphabet)  include,  doubtless,  after  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
the  following :  The  writings  of  the  prophets,  in  thirteen  books,  viz. : 
Joshua;  Judges  and  Ruth  in  one  book;  First  and  Second  Samuel  in  one 
book ;  First  and  Second  Kings  in  one  book  ;  First  and  Second  Chron 
icles  in  one  book ;  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  one  book  ;  Esther ;  Isaiah  ; 
Jeremiah,  with  Lamentations,  in  one  book  ;  Ezekiel;  Daniel;  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets  in  one  book ;  and  Job.  The  four  books  of  hymns, 
etc.,  are  :  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Song  of  Songs.  This 
list  we  have  determined  both  from  the  twenty-two  books  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  and  from  the  character  of  the  list  given  by 
Josephus. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Josephus  closes  the  canon  of  Scripture 
in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  (B.  C.  465-425),  and  assigns, 
as  the  ground  of  the  close  at  that  period,  that,  after  that  time,  there 
was  no  exact  succession  of  prophets.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  no 
book,  however  excellent  its  doctrines  or  high  its  literary  merit,  was 
ever  admitted  into  the  Jewish  canon  unless  it  was  written,  or  at  least 
approved,  by  a  prophet.  Hence  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Si- 
rach,  though  an  excellent  collection  of  moral  precepts,  and  originally 
written  in  Hebrew,  never  had  a  place  in  the  canon.  That  the  latest 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  (Nehemiah,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Mal- 
achi)  were  not  written  later,  or  at  least  only  a  little  later,  than  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  we  shall  show  in  discussing  them. 

From  the  statement  of  Josephus  we  next  turn  to  Philo,  the  learned 
Jew  of  Alexandria  (*  about  B.  C.  20).  This  distinguished  writer 
attempted  a  philosophy  of  religion,  in  which  he  blended  the  doctrines 
of  Moses  and  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks.  It  is  interesting  to  inquire 
what  books  of  the  Old  Testament  he  received  as  of  divine  authority. 
The  catalogue  We  ^n(^  nmi  speaking  of  those  which  Moses  wrote.8  He 
of  PMio.  characterizes  him  as  king,  legislator,  and  high  priest, 

1  Ou  yap  pvpiddef  /3t/3A«jv  eiai  Trap1  r)[uv,  aovfify&vuv  KOI  fta^ofievuv  dvo  &  fiova  Trpoj 
role  eiKOoi  fttfiMa,  rov  Travrof  IXOVTO.  xpovov  TJJV  avaypa^v,  rd  dinaiuf  dela  TTfniorev- 
ftiva.  Kal  TOVTUV  nivre  fiev  kari  rd  Mwvarwf  a  rovf  re  vop.ov<;  irepiexzi,  nal  rrjv  rwf  av- 
QpuTToyoviae  irapddoaiv,  pexpt  TT/C  avrov  refavrrir  oiroj-  6  xpovog  aTroAc/Trc*  rpiffxi'/iuv 
bliyov  kruv.  'ATTO  de  1%  Muvaewc  TtXewrf/f  (j.ixPL  TW  Apra^p^ov  rov  ftera  Sf/)^* 
Hepctiv  /?aa/A£(jf  dp^f,  ol  (JLETU.  Muvorjv  npo(j>7JTai  rd  /car'  avrovf  trpax^evra  avvtypa 
Vav  kv  rptol  nal  deAca  |9l0AJ0<f  at  6e  honral  rsaaapEf  v/nvovf  el?  rov  $ebv  not  rolf  av 
tipuTrois  VTrodfjuae  TOV  ftiov  irepiExovaiv.  'ATTO  tie  'Apraffpfov  ,u^pi  rov  Ka$'  Tjpdj 
Xpovov  ytypaurai  (J.EV  iKaara"  iriartuq  de  ovx  6//oi'af  ^iurai  rolf  npb  avruv,  6ia  TO  ^ 
yevecrdai  rrjv  ruv  KpoyijTuv  a/cpt/3^  Siadox^v. — Contra  Apion,  liber  i,  8. 

*  Muuaj/f  .  .  .  raZf  Upalf  fltfOtoif     .  .  ovviypatyev. — ii.  136. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTUREa  39 

and  attributes  to  him  prophetic  powers  and  divine  inspiration.1  In 
quoting  a  passage  from  Joshua,  he  calls  it  "  the  oracle  of  the  merciful 
God."a  He  quotes  Isaiah  as  one  of  the  ancient  prophets;  8  likewise 
Jeremiah,  with  the  remark,  "as  God,  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophet, 
said."*  In  the  same  style  he  quotes  Hosea.6  Besides  these  sacred 
writers,  he  cites  passages  from  Judges,  i  Samuel,  i  Kings,  i  Chronicles, 
Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Zechariah.  From  the  books  of  Moses  he 
has  from  eight  hundred  to  a  thousand  quotations.  He  also  speaks  of 
14  laws  and  oracles  uttered  by  inspiration  through  the  prophets,  and 
hymns  and  the  other  (writings)  by  which  knowledge  and  piety  are 
increased  and  perfected."6  Here  we  have  the  threefold  division  of 
the  Old  Testament,  so  common  among  the  Hebrews.  There  is  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  Philo's  canon  differed  from  that  of  Josephus. 

The  next  reference,  in  point  of  antiquity,  to  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  occurs  in  the  prologue  to  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Wisdom  of  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  of  Jerusalem.  In  this  prologue 
the  translator  states  that  his  grandfather,  Jesus,  having  devoted  him 
self  to  the  "  reading  of  the  LAW,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  other 
books  of  the  fathers,"7  was  led  to  write  something  of  his  own  per 
taining  to  discipline  and  wisdom.  In  this  statement  we  recognise 
the  threefold  division  of  the  canon. 

The  translator  says  that  he  himself  went  into  Egypt  in  the  (my) 
thirty-eighth  year,  in  the  time  of.  (Ptolemy)  Euergetes  (B.C.  246-221), 
and  having  acquired  no  small  amount  of  knowledge,  he  translated 
the  work  of  his  grandfather,  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  from  the  He 
brew  language.8  And  the  imitations  of  the  Hebrew  language  found 
in  the  Greek  translation  show  that  the  original  was  in  Hebrew. 
The  grandfather  probably  wrote  forty  or  fifty  years  before  the  trans 
lation  was  made.  We  cannot  refer  the  original  work  to  a  period 
much  later  than  B.  C.  290,  for  Sirach  praises  most  extravagantly  the 


1  Ata  rrjs  Trpo^jyretaf  baa  (JLTJ  Aoyj<7^£  KaraAa/z/?dver<u  deaTrify  .  .  .  Mwerewf 
oavroe.  —  ii,  163.     These  numbers  are  according  to  Mangey's  edition. 

"Aoyiov  roy  tAfw  tfeov.  —  i,  430.  '  i,  681.  *  i,  576.  *i, 

*  N6//ovf  KOI  Aoym  &eaKia$f:vTa  dia  irpoQrjTuv  KOI  {I/AVOV{  /cat  ra  aX/la  olf  e  T 

KOI  evcsfteta  ovvav^ovrai  aal  refaiovvrai.  —  Zfc  Vit.  Cont.t  ii,  475,  according  to  Man- 
gey's  edition. 

*  T<H>  vofiov  KOI  T&V  irpo<JnjT(Jv  not  TUV  aMuv  irdTpiuv  (3iftMuv  avdyvuciv. 

*  Many  suppose  that  Euergetes  II.  is  referred  to  by  the  translator  (B.  C.  145-116), 
ar.I  that  the  second  Simon  also,  the  son  of  Onias,  is  the  high-priest  praised  by  the 
son  of  Sirach  —  neither  of  which  suppositions  is  probable,  since,  if  a  second  Euer 
getes  and  a  second  Simon  had  been  meant,  the  author  would  so  have  designated 
them.      The  second  Simon  died  about  195  B.  C.     The  passage  in  Sirach  has  some 
times  been  translated,  "In  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Euergetes,"  which  can  hardly 
be  correct.     It  should  rather  be,  "  In  iny  thirty-eighth  year." 


40  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

high-priest,  Simon,  the  son  of  Onias,  who  died  at  that  time ; '  the  lan 
guage  he  uses  shows  that  Simon  was  already  dead,  and  the  eulogy 
is  that  of  an  acquaintance  and  friend  with  whom  he  had  been  con 
temporary. 

The  Old  Testament  canon,  as  it  existed  among  the  Jews  in  the 
early  ages  of  Christianity,  and  the  traditions  respecting  the  various 
books  that  compose  it,  are  found  in  the  Talmuds  The  Rabbies  of 
the  Talmuds  divided  the  canon  into  twenty-four  books,  instead  of 
twenty-two,  as  given  by  Josephus  and  several  of  the  most  learned 
Christian  Fathers,  as  we  have  already  seen,  though  Jerome  also  al 
ludes  to  the  division  into  twenty-four  books.  "  Whoever,"  says  the 
Talmud,  "brings  more  than  twenty-four  Holy  Writings  into  the 
house  (that  is,  into  the  canon),  brings  confusion  into  it."a  These 
twenty-four  books  are  the  same  as  the  present  Hebrew  canon.  The 
first  division,  the  mifl,  (TORAH,  LAW,)  consisting  of  five  books,  is  as- 
Taimudic  Can-  cribed  to  Moses,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  eight  verses, 
on>  which,  it  is  said,  Joshua  wrote.'  Next  follow  the  writings 

of  the  EARLIER  PROPHETS  :  The  Book  of  Joshua,  The  Book  of  Judges, 
The  Book  of  Samuel,  and  The  Book  of  Kings.4  In  the  third  di 
vision  we  have  the  three  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  in  one  book,  beginning  with  Hosea  and 
ending  with  Malachi.5  The  fourth  division  was  called  KETHUBIM  by 
the  Hebrews  (a  word  meaning  simply  writings),  and  Hagiographa 
(Holy  Writings)  by  the  Fathers,  and  also  by  the  Talmud,  on  the  sup 
position  that  all  the  Kethubim  were  composed  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.6  The  tradition  of  the  Talmud  gives  the  follow 
ing  books  in  this  division  :  Ruth,  Book  of  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Lamentations,  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra-Nehe- 
miah,  and  Chronicles.7 

According  to  an  ancient  Jewish  tradition,  found  in  the  Talmud, 
a  great  council,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  members, 
was  established  at  Jerusalem  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the 
Babylonian  captivity  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
manus,  B.  C.  444,  and  continued  a  period  of  about  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  until  the  death  of  the  high-priest  Simon,  B.  C.  196*  This 

'Chap.  50. 

a  San.,  Shemot  rabba,  c.  41,  quoted  by  Dr.  Julius  Fiirst,  p.  3,  Der  Kanon  dc« 
Alt.  Test. 

'Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  eight  verses  which  are  in  the  Law  Baba  Batra.— 
Furst,  page  9.  4  Fiirst,  pp.  10-14. 

*  See  Fiirst  on  the  Canon  nach  den  iiberlef.  in  Talmud  and  Midrasch. 
•See  Fiirst,  p.  55.  *  Ibid.,  p.  59. 

*  See  in  Talmud  Baba  Batra,  and  Fiirst,  pp.  21-23. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  41 

great  council  had  charge  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament) 
and  the  introduction  of  new  ones  into  the  canon  when  prophecy 
had  ceased  would  have  been  a  matter  of  great  difficulty.  In  2  Mac 
cabees  it  is  stated  "  that  Nehemiah,  having  founded  a  library,  col 
lected  together  those  things  pertaining  to  the  kings  and  the  proph 
ets,  and  those  concerning  David  and  the  epistles  of  the  kings  con 
cerning  offerings."1 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  HEBREW  AND  ITS  COGNATE  TONGUES. 

Old  Testament  is  written  in  Hebrew,  with  the  exception  of 
about  three  fifths  of  the  book  of  Daniel  and  one  third  of  the 
book  of  Ezra,  which  are  written  in  Chaldee.  Also  in  Jeremiah  we 
have  a  single  verse  in  Chaldee  (x,  n).  Hebrew  was  the  language  of 
the  Canaanites  when  Abraham  sojourned  among  them,  The  Hebrew 
from  whom  he  learned  it.  His  vernacular  in  Mesopo-  language  in 
tamia  was  Aramaean.3  His  descendants  carried  the  He-  anaan< 
brew  with  them  into  Egypt,  and  brought  it  back  to  Palestine  with 
them.  It  was  their  vernacular  until  some  centuries  after  the  Baby 
lonian  captivity,  when  it  was  wholly  supplanted  by  the  Chaldee,  which 
came  gradually  into  use  from  the  time  of  the  captivity.  It  is  impos 
sible  to  tell  exactly  how  long  before  the  advent  of  Christ  the  Chal 
dee,  in  use  in  his  time,  had  become  the  prevailing  tongue. 

It  is  evident  that  the  people  of  Canaan  spoke  the  Hebrew  lan 
guage,  from  the  names  of  several  places  ;  for  example,  iao  mp,  city 
of  books;  pltf-^SD,  king  of  righteousness.  It  is  called  (Isaiah  xix, 
1  8)  the  language  of  Canaan  ;  and  after  the  ten  tribes  were  carried 
away  captive  by  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria,  it  is  called  JVUTT, 
Jews'  language.  The  name  Hebrew  ('I3y)  is  given  to  Abraham 
(Gen.  xiv,  13),  and  Hebrews  (a^j;)  to  his  descendants  through 
Jacob  (Exod.  ix,  i).  Some  regard  this  name  as  derived  from  13]?, 
beyond  tk:  river  (Euphrates),  the  man  from  beyond  the  river  \  6  Trepan?? 


rjyayt  ra  irepl  T 

re  roi  Aavtd,  KOI  eTUffroAaf  f3aaitecjv,  irepl  avadepdruv,  —  ii,  13. 
'  This  is  evident  from  Gen.  xxxi,  47,  where  the  name  of  the  heap  of  stones  called 
a  (Galetd)  by  Jacob,  is  named  arfiina  13  J  (Yegar  Sahadutha)  t:y  Laban  the 
Syrian,  which  is  Aramaean. 


42  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Septuagint.1  But  in  the  Bible  the  name  seems  to  be  derived  from  tajJ 
(Eber),  one  of  the  ancestors  of  Abraham.  Gen.  x,  21  ;  Num  xxiv,  24. 
From  the  Hebrew  people  the  name  of  the  language  itself  is  derived. 

The  Hebrew  is  a  branch  of  a  family  of  languages  generally  called 
Semitic,  from  Shem,  the  ancestor  of  the  peoples  using  them.  This 
family  embraces,  besides  the  Hebrew,  the  Punic,  spoken  by  the 
Phoenicians  and  their  colonies ;  the  Aramaean,  spoken  in  Aram 
Of  the  Semitic  (Syria  and  Assyria,  Mesopotamia  and  Babylonia)  in  two 
languages.  dialects,  the  Syriac  in  the  north  and  the  Chaidee  in 
the  south  ;  the  Arabic,  spoken  originally  in  Northern  Arabia,  and 
the  Himyaritic  in  the  south  ;  and  the  ^5£thiopic  in  Abyssinia.  To 
these  branches  of  the  Semitic  family  must  be  added  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions  on  the  monuments  of  Assyria  and  Babylon. 

The  Punic  language,  which  differs  but  little  from  the  Hebrew — as 
might  be  expected  from  Phoenicia  lying  on  the  borders  of  Canaan 
— exists,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  passages  in  Plautus,  only  on 
monuments.  Nearly  all  these  inscriptions  were  made  between  B.  C. 
100  and  about  A.  D.  200. a  The  inscription  on  the  sarcophagus  of 
Eshmunazar,  king  of  Sidon,  discovered  near  Sidon  in  1855,  is  the 
oldest  known  Phoenician  writing,  and  is  referred  by  Wuttke  to  about 
the  year  1000  B.  C.3  Others,  however,  make  it  three  or  four  cen 
turies  later. 

Northern  Aramaean,  or  Syriac,  first  becomes  known  to  us  in  the 
The  Aramaean  Syriac  translation  of  the  Bible  in  the  second  century, 
languages.  and  in  the  various  writings  of  the  Christians  extending 
from  the  second  century  to  the  thirteenth.  Its  most  flourishing 
period  was  from  the  fourth  to  the  tenth  century,  during  which  time 
the  Syriac  literature,  embracing  nearly  all  departments  of  knowledge, 
was  especially  rich  in  works  on  theology,  and  particularly  in  Oriental 
and  ecclesiastical  history.  The  works  of  Aristotle  and  other  Greek 
authors  were  translated  into  it.4  It  was  spoken  through  the  whole 
country  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  Mediterranean  sea,  on  the  north 
and  north-west  by  the  Taurus  mountains,  on  the  east  by  the  river 
Tigris,  and  on  the  south  by  Palestine  and  Arabia.  Its  most  flourish 
ing  seat  was  Edessa.  A  corrupt  form  of  Syriac  is  still  spoken  by 
the  Nestorian  Christians  of  Oroomiah,. Persia,  and  Koordistan.8 

1  Ewald  (Ausf.  Lehrbuch  der  Heb.  Sprache,  8te  ausg.,  p.  20)  regards  this  view 
as  altogether  uncertain. 

1  Gesenius,  Monumenta  Phoenicia,  liber  primus. 

*Die  Entstehung  der  Schrift,  u.  s.  w.,  i  band.     Leipzig,  1872. 

4  Uhlemann,  Introduction  to  his  Syriac  Grammar. 

"See  A  Grammar  of  the  Modern  Syriac  Language  as  spoken  in  Oroomiah,  Pel 
ia,  and  Koordistan,  by  Rev.  D.  T.  Stoddard,  New  Haven,  Conn.,  1855. 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  43 

The  southern  Aramaean,  or  Chaldee,  is  first  found  in  the  Books  of 
Daniel  and  Ezra,  and  is  the  language  of  the  Targums.  It  was 
spoken  by  the  Jews  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ.  The  Arabic 
is  the  richest,  the  most  flexible,  the  most  difficult,  and  the  most 
widely  diffused  of  all  the  Semitic  tongues.  It  was  first  spoken  in 
northern  Arabia,  but  does  not  appear  as  a  written  language  until  four 
or  five  centuries  after  Christ.  The  Koran,  written  in  the  Koreish 
dialect,  spread  the  Arabic  language  far  and  wide  with  the  conquests 
of  Mohammed  in  the  seventh  century,  and  with  the  subsequent  prog 
ress  of  his  system.  The  Arabic  is  the  spoken  or  sacred  language  of  a 
population  of  over  sixty  millions  in  northern,  and  a  portion  of  middle 
Africa,  and  in  western,  and  a  part  of  southern,  Asia.  The  Himyar- 
itic  language  was  spoken  in  southern  Arabia  before  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  even  in  the  fourteenth  century  it  had  not  died  out  in  Yemen. 
The  Ethiopic,  a  branch  of  the  Himyaritic,  simpler  in  its  structure 
than  the  Arabic,  and  more  closely  allied  to  the  Hebrew,  continued 
in  general  use  in  Abyssinia  as  a  written  language  until  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  when  it  was  supplanted  by  the  Tigre  and  Amharic 
dialects.  Besides  the  translation  of  the  Bible  in  Ethiopic,  there  are 
found,  in  this  language,  in  European  libraries  (especially  in  Lon 
don),  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  and  the  fourth 
Book  of  Ezra,  besides  many  other  unprinted  works,  as  the  spoils  of 
the  expedition  against  King  Theodore. 

The  Semitic  languages  have  several  peculiar  features.  The  verb 
stems  almost  invariably  consist  of  three  consonants  with  their  vowels, 
as :  Stop  (jqatat),  he  killed.  The  modification  of  this  primitive  form, 
by  prefixing  nun  (j),  gives  it  a  reflexive,  reciprocal,  or  passive  sense, 
as  :  SpjW  (niqtat],  to  kill  one's  self>  etc. ;  by  doubling  the  middle  co?iso- 
nant  and  making  certain  vowel  changes,  the  verb  ac 
quires  intensive  force,  as  :  ^Bp  (qittel),  to  massacre,  to  kill  ties  of  the  sem- 
many  ;  by  prefixing  he  (n)  and  modifying  the  stem,  we 
obtain  a  causative  meaning;  as:  S'Bpfl  (hiqtil),  to  cause  to  kill;  by 
prefixing  nn  (hith),  with  vowel  changes,  we  have  a  reflexive  sense  ; 
as  :  Sapnn  \hithqattet],  to  kill  one's  self,  etc. 

These  languages  have  only  two  tense  forms,  a  preterit  and  a  future, 
sometimes  called  an  imperfect.  The  future  tense  is  sometimes  used 
for  the  subjunctive,  the  optative,  and  the  imperative  moods,  and 
also  to  express  past  time.  Pronouns  in  the  oblique  cases  are  affixed 
to  the  nouns,  and  in  the  accusative  to  verbs.  Nouns  placed  before 
other  nouns  that  limit  their  meaning  are  said  to  be  in  the  construct 
state,  and  very  often  undergo  change ;  as :  mrr  ian,  devdr  Yeho- 
vah%  (word  of  Jehovah),  devdr,  construct  from  "Ol,  ddvdr.  There  arc 


44  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    S'l  UDY 

no  words  compounded  in  part  of  prepositions,  as  in  the  European 
languages. 

The  Semitic  languages  were  originally  written  without  vowel 
points.  In  the  Ethiopic,  however,  vowels  are  indicated  by  the 
modification  of  the  consonant  forms.  It  has  been  estimated  that 
the  Hebrew  language,  as  found  in  the  Bible,  has  about  six  thousand 
words,  which,  of  course,  are  but  a  portion  of  its  entire  ancient 
treasures.  The  Arabic  language  contains  about  sixty  thousand 
words ;  but  the  greater  part  of  its  roots  are  the  same  as  those  of  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  language  often  furnishes  valuable  aid  in  under 
standing  the  Hebrew.  The  Aramaean  is  more  closely  allied  to  the 
Hebrew  than  is  the  Arabic. 

Gesenius  acknowledges  but  two  distinct  periods  in  the  biblical 
Hebrew :  the  first,  its  golden  age,  extending  to  the  end  of  the  Baby 
lonian  exile ;  and  the  second,  the  silver  age,  from  the  close  of  the 
The  biblical  ex^e  to  tne  times  of  tne  Maccabees,  about  B.  C.  160.' 
Hebrew  lan-  On  the  other  hand,  Ewald,  the  late  distinguished  Ori 
entalist,  remarks,  that  "  the  Hebrew  language,  until  the 
end  of  the  Old  Testament,  lived  through  three  periods,  into  which 
the  whole  history  of  Israel  is  divided. "a  His  divisions  are  as  follows : 
i.  The  period  extending  from  some  time  previous  to  Moses  to  the 
age  of  the  kings.  2.  The  period  from  the  kings  to  the  sixth  or 
seventh  century  before  Christ.  3.  From  the  Babylonian  captivity 
to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,8  when  it  was  completely  supplanted 
by  the  Chaldee. 

The  Hebrew  language,  Ewald  holds,  seems  to  have  suffered  few 
changes  from  the  time  of  Moses  until  about  six  hundred  years  before 
Christ,  because  the  structure  of  the  Semitic  languages  is  somewhat 
more  simple,  and  therefore  less  liable  to  change,  than  that  of  lan 
guages  of  a  greater  development.  The  Hebrews  were  never  long 
subjected  to  peoples  of  a  foreign  tongue;  they  lived  under  their 
own  free  constitution,  mostly  separated  from  other  nations.  Many 
changes  in  the  language,  however,  are  not  perceptible  to  us,  because 
it  was  punctuated  according  to  a  later  standard.4  The  language,  as 
it  is  exhibited  to  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  completely  formed,  and 
subsequent  ages  could  make  but  little  improvement  in  it.  The 
square  character,  in  which  it  is  now  written  and  printed,  came 
gradually  into  use,  it  would  seem,  some  time  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  and  was  brought  home  by  the  Jews  returning  from  exile 

^oediger's  Gesenius'  Heb.  Gram.,  pp.  9,  10. 
*Ausf.  Lehrbuch  der  Heb.  Sprach.,  eighth  edition,  p.  23. 
'See  Ewald's  Ausf.  Lehrbuch  der  Heb.  Sprach.,  pp.  23-  25. 
p.  23. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  45 

along  with  the  Chaldee ; l  so  that  about  the  time  of  Christ  it  had  al 
ready  supplanted  the  ancient  Phoenician  character.  The  latter, 
however,  is  found  on  Maccabean  coins  of  about  B.  C.  143.  The 
Samaritan  characters  were  very  similar  to  the  Phoenician,  but  the 
present  Samaritans  use  characters  in  many  respects  different  from 
Phoenician. 

A  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  language  is  very 
valuable  to  the  theologian,  and  to  the  biblical  critic  indispensable 
The  knowledge  of  the  tongue  has  been  preserved  to  Tnenecessityof 
us  in  several  ways:  First,  by  tradition,  handed  down  a  knowledge  of 

J  .   T  ,  Hebrew.    How 

from  generation  to  generation  by  learned  Jews,  who  es-   the    language 

tablished  schools  of  learning,  and  wrote  lexicons,  gram-   has  been  Pre- 

served. 

mars,  and  commentaries  on  their  language ;  second,  by 
the  early  translations  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  namely :  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  Targums  or  Chaldee  translations,  the  Syriac,  Vulgate,  and 
other  versions  ;  and  third,  by  the  Arabic,  one  of  the  sister  tongues 
of  the  Hebrew,  a  living  language,  which  confirms  and  illustrates  our 
traditional  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew.  Besides  these  sources,  the 
analogy  of  languages  and  the  study  of  the  context  often  throw  great 
light  upon  difficult  passages. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  Jews  were  almost  exclusively  the  culti 
vators  of  Hebrev;  literature,  and  a  Hebraist  among  the  Christians 
was  rare.  The  revival  of  learning  in  Christendom,  and  the  powerful 
impulse  given  to  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  Reforma 
tion,  was  felt  in  Hebrew  philology. 

John  Reuchlin,  Professor  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  at  Ingolstadt 
(t  1522),  was  the  father  of  Hebrew  philology  among  Christians. 
In  the  first  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  labours  of  the  two 
Buxtorfs,  father  and  son,  Professors  of  Hebrew  in  Basel,  in  Hebrew 
grammar,  lexicography,  and  cognate  subjects,  form  an  epoch  in 
r'Ae  history  of  the  cultivation  of  the  language.  In  the  same  century 
we  have  in  England  the  great  Hebraists,  Lightfoot,  Walton,  Castell, 
Pococke,  and  Hyde.  In  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
Albert  Schultens  employed  his  profound  knowledge  of  Arabic  in  il 
lustrating  the  Hebrew;  and  since  his  time  Hebrew  lexicographers 
and  grammarians,  in  discussing  the  principles  of  the  language, 
avail  themselves  of  the  light  afforded  by  the  sister  tongues.  In  the 
same  century  we  have,  in  Hebrew  philology,  the  distinguished  names 
of  John  Henry  Michaelis  and  John  David  Michaelis,  Simonis, 
and  Dathe.  In  the  present  century  the  study  of  Hebrew  has  re- 

*Origen,  Jerome,  and  the  Talmudists  affirm  this. 

'  The  author  brought  home  from  Nablfts  the  present  Samaritan  alphalttt. 


40  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

ceived  a  new  impulse  through  the  labours  of  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Ftlrst 
Hupfeld,  Rosenmiiller,  Winer,  Roediger,  Lee,  and  others.  In  the 
United  States  the  language  has  been  especially  cultivated  by  Stuart, 
Bush,  Nordheimer,  and  Green.  Nearly  all  the  men  who  have  been 
distinguished  as  Hebrew  scholars  were  skilled  in  most  of  its  cognate 
tongues.  For  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  the  grammars  cf 
Gesenius  (edited  by  Roediger,  and  translated  into  English  by 
Conant),  Nordheimer,  Ewald,  and  Green,  and  the  lexicons  of  Ge 
senius  (translated  by  Robinson)  and  Fiirst  (translated  into  English 
by  Davidson)  are  the  best.  Gesenius,  as  a  lexicographer,  has  no 
superior.  "  He  had,"  says  Dr.  Robinson,  "the  persevering  industry 
of  the  Germans  and  the  common  sense  of  the  English." 

In  Fiirst 's  lexicon  the  accented  syllable  is  marked,  and  such  fre 
quent  references  are  made  to  the  explanations  of  the  ancient  Rab- 
works  on  the  bies  as  miKnt  be  expected  from  one  who  was  a  Rabbi 
Hebrew  lan-  himself.  The  Concordance  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Chal- 
*uage'  dee  words  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Julius 

Fiirst,1  is  of  great  value  to  the  student  of  Hebrew,  and  is  not  only 
a  Concordance,  but,  to  a  great  extent,  a  lexicon  also. 

For  the  study  of  Chaldee,  Winer's  Grammar  of  the  Chaldee  Lan 
guage  contained  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Targums,  translated  into 
English  by  Professor  Hackett,  is  the  best.  The  Hebrew  lexi 
cons  contain  the  biblical  Chaldee  ;  and  for  the  Targums,  the  lexi 
con  of  Rabbi  J.  Levy  is  preferable  to  any  other.8  The  definitions 
are  given  in  German,  and  the  words  are  arranged  alphabetically. 
Also,  for  the  biblical  Chaldee,  and  for  the  dialect  of  the  Baby 
lonian  Talmud,  the  work  of  Samuel  David  Luzzatto,  of  Trieste,  is 
valuable. 

The  Chaldee,  Talmudical,  and  Rabbinical  Lexicon  of  John  Bux- 
torf  extends  over  the  Targums,  the  Talmuds,  and  the  writings  of  the 
ancient  Rabbies  in  general.  It  was  the  product  of  thirty  years'  labor, 
and  contains  two  thousand  six  hundred  and  seventy-eight  columns, 
(two  columns  to  the  folio  page,)  and  was  published  at  Basel  in  1640. 
The  definitions  are  in  Latin.  It  is  a  great  storehouse  of  Hebrew 
learning,  and  is  indispensable  to  the  student  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
writings.  With  all  its  great  merits,  however,  it  has  some  serious 
defects.  The  words  are  not  arranged  alphabetically,  but  placed 
under  the  roots  from  which  they  are  supposed  to  be  derived.  The 

1  The  Latin  title  is,  Librorum  Sacrorum  Veteris  Testamenti  Concordantiae  He- 
braicae  atque  Chaldaicae,  etc.  It  is  printed  on  fine  paper  with  clear  type.  Leip 
zig,  1840. 

alts  title  is,  Chaldaisches  Worterbuch  viber  die  Targumim  und  einen  grosser 
Theil  des  Rabbinischen  Schrifthums,  2  vols.  Leipzig,  1867,  1868. 


OF    THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  47 

proper  names  are  wanting.  A  reprint  of  the  work  was  undertaken 
at  Leipzig  in  1866  by  the  Jew  Fisher,  and  published,  with  addi 
tions,  in  1875,  in  2  vols.,  4to. 

For  the  students  of  Syriac,  the  grammar  of  Uhlemann,  translated 
from  the  German  by  Enoch  Hutchinson,  with  exercises  He,pg  for  the 
in  Syriac  grammar,  a  chrestomathy,  and  brief  lexicon,  study  of  syriac 
will  be  found  to  be  all  that  is  desired.  The  lexicon  of  andArabic- 
Edmund  Castell,  with  additions  by  Michaelis,  in  two  parts,  quarto. 
Gotti-ngen,  1788.  is  the  best  general  Syriac  lexicon.  For  the  Pesh- 
ito  New  Testament,  Schaaf 's  Lexicon,  published  at  Leyden  in  1709, 
quarto,  is  the  best.  A  small  lexicon  to  the  Peshito  New  Testament 
is  published  by  Samuel  Bagster,  London.  To  meet  a  felt  want, 
the  preparation  of  a  "  Thesaurus  Syriacus  "  has  been  undertaken 
by  Bernstein  and  others,  the  first  volume  of  which,  folio,  was  pub 
lished  at  Oxford  in  1879,  edited  by  R.  P.  Smith. 

For  the  acquisition  of  Arabic,  one  of  the  best  grammars  is  Cas- 
pari's,  translated  into  English,  with  additions,  by  W.  Wright.  Ewald 
has  also  published  a  valuable  Arabic  grammar  in  Latin.  The  Ar 
abic  grammar  of  Silvestre  de  Sacy,  Paris,  second  edition,  1831, 
stands  very  high.  The  Arabic-English  lexicon  of  E.  W.  Lane, 
when  completed,  will  be  the  best  lexicon,  at  least  for  English  stu 
dents.  Freitag's  Ara.bic-Latin  lexicon,  in  four  volumes  (of  which 
there  is  an  abridgment  in  one  volume),  is  the  best  yet  published. 
The  Arabic-English  and  English-Arabic  lexicon  of  Joseph  Cata- 
fago,  bound  in  one  volume,  is  too  meagre  in  the  Arabic-English 
part  to  meet  the  wants  of  students. 

For  the  Ethiopic  language  we  have  the  grammar  and  the  lexicon 
of  Job  Ludolf,  first  published  in  1661,  and  the  recently  published 
grammar,  chrestomathy,  and  lexicon  of  August  Dillmann. 


48  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    CONDITION   OF    THE    TEXT   OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 
HEBREW    MANUSCRIPTS. 

IT  may   seem  strange  that  while  we  have  Greek  manuscripts  of 
the  New  Testament  fifteen  hundred  years  old,1  the  most  ancient 
causes  of  the  manuscripts  of  tne  Old  Testament  extant  are  scarcely 
loss  of  Hebrew  a  thousand  years  old,  and  are  few  in  number.     The  fol 
manuscripts.      }owmg  causes  may  be  assigned  for  this  disparity : — 

1.  As  the  Christians  made  but  little  use  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the 
number  of  Hebrew  manuscripts  in  existence  from  the  third  to  the 
tenth  century  was  not  one  tenth,  perhaps  not  one  twentieth,  of  the 
number  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament ;  conse 
quently  the  probability  of   their  destruction  was    proportionately 
greater  than  that  of  the  New  Testament  manuscripts. 

2.  The  Jews  have  had  no  permanent  places  of  abode,  but  have 
been  wanderers  upon  the  earth.     This  unsettled  life  has  been  unfa 
vourable  to  the  preservation  of  their  sacred  writings,  while  the  con 
vents  of  the  Christians,  existing  from   the   early  centuries  of  the 
Church  to  the  present  day,  have  been  safe  depositories  of  the  Christ 
ian  Scriptures.      The  convent  has  proved  the  ark  for  the  transmis 
sion  of  the  ancient  manuscripts  to  us.a 

3.  After  the  pointed  Hebrew  text  had  been  established  by  the 
Masorites,  the  Jewish   rabbies   destroyed   those  manuscripts  which 
were  not  conformable  to  this  standard.     This  cause  has  been  as 
signed  by  Walton,  and  is  r.ot  without  justification. 

4.  The  custom   that  existed  among  the  Jews  of  burying,  with 
distinguished  teachers,  their  worn  manuscripts. 

The  most  ancient  and  valuable  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  are  the 
following : — 

i.  The  manuscript  that  takes  its  name  from  Rabbi  Aaron  ben-Mose 
ben-Asher,  who  lived  at  Tiberias  in  the  tenth  century.  This  is  the 
BestHeDrew  best  and  most  celebrated  of  all  the  codices  of  the  Old 
manuscripts.  Testament,  and  is  regarded  both  by  the  Karaites  and 

1  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  Codex  Vaticanus  were  written  about  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century. 

8  It  will  be  remembered  that  Tischendorf  found  his  famous  Codex  Sinaiticus  in 
the  convent  of  Saint  Catharine. 


OF  THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  49 

the  rabbies  as  a  model  codex  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  from 
which  the  usual  Masoretic  text  is  printed.  This  manuscript  is  pre 
served  at  Bercca. 

2.  Codex  of  the  Prophets,  written  A.  D.  895,  by  Moses  ben-Asher, 
an  inhabitant  of  Tiberias,  a  Karaite,  is  preserved  in  the  synagogue 
of  the  Karaites  in  Cairo. 

3  Codex  of  the  Later  Prophets,  of  uncertain  age,  probably  written 
between  the  seventh  and  the  eleventh  century.  It  wants  the  Masora. 
This  manuscript  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum. 

4.  Two  very  ancient  manuscripts  are  said  to  exist  in  Syria,  one  in 
Damascus,  and  the  other  in  a  neighboring  town,  Gobar. 

5.  Codex  Babylonicus  Petropolitanus,  containing  the  later  proph 
ets,  edited  by  Hermann  Strack,  Leipzig.     Written,  A.D.  916. 

6.  Several  manuscripts  in  the  collection  of  Kennicott,  from  eight 
hundred  to  a  thousand  years  old. 

7.  In  De  Rossi's  collection  of  manuscripts  are  four  that  probably 
belong  to  the  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  and  twelfth  centuries. 

8.  Manuscripts  preserved  at  Odessa.     In  this  fine  collection  of 
Hebrew  codices  are  some  a  thousand  years  old,  and  one  of  the 
whole  Bible  written  about  A.  D.  1010. 

Several  valuable  manuscripts,  now  lost,  were  once  quoted  by 
rabbies;  of  these  the  most  celebrated  was  that  of  Hillel,  written 
probably  not  earlier  than  the  seventh  century,  as  it  seems  to  have 
been  furnished  with  the  Masora.1  Sixteen  manuscripts  of  the 
Hebrew-Samaritan  Pentateuch,  the  oldest  not  later  than  the  tenth 
century,  are  described  by  Blaney  in  his  Oxford  edition  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  1790.  These  manuscripts  have  no  vowel 
points. 

A  variety  of  readings  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,  but 
there  is  substantial  agreement.  Those  prepared  for  the  use  of  the 
synagogue  are  the  most  correct. 

In  the  time  of  Jerome  (about  A.  D.  400)  the  Hebrew  text  was 
still  without  vowels8  and  critical  remarks,  and  this  was  also  the  case 
at  the  time  of  the  completion  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  in  the  be 
ginning  of  the  sixth  century.  The  text  was  punctuated,  and  critical 
remarks  were  made  on  the  margin  by  the  Masorites  (traditionists,from 
,  tradition),  learned  Jews,  principally  of  the  school  of  Tiberias, 


1  See  Dr.  Strack's  Proleg.  Critica  in  Vetus  Testamentum  Hebraicum,  Leipzig 
1873,  of  wnich  we  have  made  great  use. 

3  The  Phoenician,  Syriac,  Chaldee,  and  Arabic  languages  were  anciently  written 
without  vowels.  The  Koran  originally  had  no  vowels.  Even  the  English  language 
has  no  complete  vowel  system,  but  the  same  vowel  is  differently  pronounced  in  dif 
ferent  words. 

VOL.  I.—  4 


50  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

after  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  and  completed  in  the  sev 
enth.  The  vowel  system  is,  accordingly,  that  which  was  in  use  in 
Palestine,  and  is,  no  doubt,  very  accurate.  So  scrupulous  were  the 
Masorites  that  they  did  not  venture  to  change  the  text  when  they 
had  the  best  reason  for  believing  it  faulty,  but  they  wrote  without 
vowels  on  the  margin  the  word  that  should  be  read,  and  the  vowels 
belonging  to  it  they  gave  to  the  word  in  the  text.  The  marginal 
reading  is  called  Qeri,  read,  while  the  text  is  .Kethib,  written. 

The  Masorites  spent  a  great  deal  of  labour  upon  the  text.  They 
computed  the  number  of  letters  in  each  book,  and  gave  the  middle 
letter,  the  number  of  verses  of  each  book,  and  many  other  particulars. 
The  Talmudists  give  definite  rules  for  the  writing  of  manuscripts, 
and  the  most  strenuous  care  was  taken  to  secure  the  greatest  accuracy 
in  transmitting  to  posterity  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament.1 

But  in  modern  times  we  have  had  no  such  continued  labours  on 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  as  we  have  had  on  the  New  in  the 
critical  editions  of  Griesbach,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  and,  above  all,  of 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles.  Accordingly,  the  text  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament  is  not  so  definitely  fixed  as  that  of  the  New. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ANCIENT  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 
I.      THE     SEPTUAGJNT. 

TVTEXT  in  importance  to  the  ancient  Hebrew  manuscripts  for 
-^  settling  the  original  text  are  ancient  versions;  and  when  they 
were  executed  at  a  period  far  earlier  than  that  of  the  oldest  existing 
manuscript  of  the  original  they  are  of  the  highest  value,  for  they 
show,  in  not  a  few  cases,  how  the  original  read  at  the  time  when  they 
were  made,  and  they  prove,  by  their  agreement  with  the  Hebrew,  that 
there  has  been  no  corruption  of  the  sacred  writings.  The  most  an 
cient  version  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  Alexandrian,  generally  called 
the  Septuagint,  from  its  being  claimed  to  be  the  work  of  seventy  or 
seventy-two  men,  who,  it  is  said,  translated  the  Hebrew  into  Greek. 
A  great  deal  of  uncertainty  rests  upon  the  history  of  this  version  ; 
The  Septuagint  ^or  ^e  °^est  account  respecting  it  appears  in  a  docu- 
version.  ment  professing  to  be  written  by  a  Greek  at  the  couit 

1  The  Textus  Receptus  is  printed  from  the  text  of  the   Masr  rUes,  hence  it  i? 
called  the  Masoretic  Text. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  51 

of   Ptolemy  Philadelphia  (B.  C.   285-247)   in  Alexandria,  and   ad 
dressed  to  Philocrates.     It  is  generally  rejected  as  spurious.1 

According  to  the  statement  of  this  writing,  the  celebrated  Athe 
nian  Demetrius  Phalereus  induced  the  Egyptian  king,  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus,  to  have  a  Greek  version  made  of  the  Jewish  law  books. 
The  king,  first  having  secured  the  favour  of  the  Jews  by  emancipa 
ting  their  countrymen  who  were  slaves  in  Egypt,  sent  to  Jerusalem 
an  embassy,  in  which  Aristeas  took  a  part,  to  request  the  high  priest 
to  send  him  suitable  men,  acquainted  with  both  Hebrew  and  Greek, 
to  make  the  translation.  The  high  priest  sent  him  the  required  men, 
seventy-two,  six  from  each  tribe,  with  a  Hebrew  manuscript  written 
in  letters  of  gold.  They  completed  the  translation  in  seventy-two 
days,  on  the  island  of  Pharos.  Thereupon,  Demetrius  called  togeth 
er  the  multitude  of  the  Jews,  and  read  the  version  in  their  presence 
and  in  that  of  the  translators.  The  translation  met  with  universal 
favour.  Such  is  the  substance  of  the  statement  of  Pseudo- Aristeas, 
and,  if  the  writing  were  not  a  forgery,  would  be  satisfactory.  Yet 
the  principal  points  in  the  story  are  possibly  true. 

The  next  statement  respecting  the  Septuagint  is  from  Aristobulus, 
an  Alexandrian  Jew  of  the  second  century  before  Christ,  preserved 
in  Eusebius.3  He  states  that  the  whole  law  was  translated  in  the 
time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  and  that  Demetrius  Phalereus  espec 
ially  interested  himself  in  the  matter.  Some,  indeed,  have  called 
in  question  the  authority  "of  Aristobulus,  but  probably  without  suf 
ficient  ground. 

The  testimony  of  Philo,  the  Alexandrian  Jew,  is  important,  on  ac 
count  of  his  locality  and  his  learning.8  He  states  that  Ptolemy  Phila 
delphus  sent  ambassadors  to  the  high  priest  and  king  of  Judea — one 
man  holding  both  offices — requesting  him  to  send  to  him  interpret 
ers  of  the  law.  The  Jewish  high  priest  being  delighted  by  the  re 
quest,  sent  to  the  Egyptian  king  men  of  the  highest  repute  among  the 
Hebrews,  who,  in  addition  to  their  Hebrew  learning,  had  ^^  oplnlons 
received  a  Greek  training.  The  translators  executed  of  PMIO,  Jose- 
their  work  on  the  isle  of  Pharos.  Philo  also  states,  that  era^n  the  se£ 
"  even  to  the  present  time,  every  year,  a  feast  and  an  as-  tuzgint. 
sembly  of  the  people  are  held  on  the  island  of  Pharos,  not  of  Jews 
only,  but  of  great  multitudes  of  other  people,  who  sail  thither,  honour- 
irg  the  place  where  the  translation  was  made."  4 

Josephus5  gives  a  long  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  version 

1  Since  the  time  of  Hody,  who  showed  the  grounds  of  its  spuriousness.     He  died 
in  1706. 

« Pnep.  Evan.,  xiii,  12.  8  He  was  born  about  20  B.  C 

« Vita  Mosis,  liber  ii,  5-7.  '  Born  A.  D.  37. 


52  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  STUDY 

was  made,  agreeing  in  the  main  facts  with  the  preceding  state 
ments.1  This  translation  was  of  only  the  Five  Books  of  Moses  ;  and 
Josephus  expressly  states,  that  "those  who  were  sent  to  Alexandria  as 
interpreters  gave  him  (the  king)  only  the  Books  of  the  Law."8  From 
a  statement  of  Aristobulus,  it  would  appear  that  some  part  of  ihe  law 
had  been  previously  translated.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  wha» 
professes  to  be  a  contemporary  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Greek 
version  of  the  law  has  no  good  claim  to  genuineness ;  yet  the  very 
fact  that  Philo  and  Josephus  follow  it,  shows  that  the  writing  of 
Aristeas  must  contain  the  principal  facts  ;  nor  could  a  forged  writing 
have  changed  the  existing  tradition.  Its  object  was  to  give  it  defi- 
niteness  and  authority. 

That  the  work  was  executed  by  seventy-two  Jews  may  be  correct, 
though  it  seems  improbable  that  such  a  large  number  should  be 
found  either  in  Palestine  or  Egypt  well  skilled  both  in  Hebrew  and 
Greek.  The  translators  may  have  been  Egyptian  Jews,  but  we 
have  no  proof  that  they  really  were ;  for,  though  they  were  Pales 
tinians,  they  might  have  consulted  their  brethren  of  Egypt,  who 
would  be  supposed  to  be  better  acquainted  with  Greek ;  and  in  this 
way  it  may  be  explained  that  they  translated  thummim  (wn)  by 
&Mj0eiat  truth^  the  name  given  by  the  Egyptians  to  the  image  worn 
by  the  Egyptian  high  priest.  De  Wette8  rejects  the  account  of  the 
translation  having  been  made  through  the  efforts  of  Ptolemy,  and 
attributes  it  to  the  Jews  of  Egypt,  who  wished  to  meet  their  own 
wants — a  view  which,  though  probable  enough  in  itself,  we  cannot 
accept,  because  it  lacks  historical  evidence. 

The  translation  of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses  was  made,  it  would 
seem,  about  B.  C.  285,  and  the  other  books  followed  in  the  next 
century  and  a  half.  The  whole  was  completed,  most  probably,  be 
fore  B.  C.  130,  as  the  grandson  of  Jesus  Sirach,  in  the  Prologue 
to  his  translation  of  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  apologizes  for  any  de 
fects  that  his  version  of  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  may  contain,  by 
remarking  "  that  the  law  itself,  and  the  prophecies,  and  the  rest 
of  the  books,  have  no  little  difference  when  read  in  their  own 
language." 

A,    CHARACTER    OF    THE    SEPTUAGINT. 

The  Greek  of  this  version  is  the  Common  Dialect  that  prevailed 
from  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  Executed  at  different  times, 
and  by  various  authors,  it  exhibits  different  degrees  of  fidelity  to  the 

1  See  Antiq.,  liber  xii,  cap.  2.  »  See  the  preface  to  his  Antiquities. 

1  Einleitung,  p.  94, 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  58 

original.1  The  Pentateuch  is  the  most  faithfully  translated,  especial 
care  being  devoted  to  it  on  account  of  the  importance  of  the  books, 
The  translation  of  Isaiah  and  of  the  Psalms  is  but  indifferently  done, 
while  that  of  Daniel  was  so  bad  that  the  early  Church  substituted 
the  translation  of  Theodotion  for  it.  At  the  end  of  the  Books  of 
Daniel  Esther,  Job,  and  Psalms,  additions  are  made  to  the  He 
brew  text. 

The  Septuagint  had  great  authority  in  the  early  Christian  Church, 
and  some  of  the  Fathers  regarded  it  as  inspired.  Among  the  Jews, 
too,  its  authority  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  ^  Septuaglnl 
era  was  great.  Philo  uses  it  alone,  and  Josephus  makes  version  in  the 
more  use  of  it  than  he  does  of  the  Hebrew  text.  "  In  early  Churclu 
the  synagogues  of  the  Alexandrian,  and  especially  of  the  Hellenistic, 
Jews,"  says  Bleek,  "  the  sacred  books  were  read  almost  exclusively 
for  a  very  long  time  in  this  translation,  and  explained  according 
to  it."8 

Its  authority  and  use  at  the  time  of  Christ  are  shown  from  the  fre 
quent  quoting  of  it  by  the  New  Testament  writers.3  But  few  of  the 
Fathers  were  acquainted  with  Hebrew,  and  great  use  was  made  of  the 
Septuagint,  upon  which  they  mainly  depended  for  their  knowledge 
of  the  Old  Testament.  To  this  version  they  appealed  in  their  con 
troversies  with  the  Jews  ;  and  on  this  ground  it  gradually  lost  author 
ity  with  the  latter,  and  began  to  be  suspected  as  early  as  the  second 
century.4 

The  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  bound  up  with 
this  version,  which  fact  led  some  of  the  early  fathers  to  quote  some 
of  them  as  Canonical  Scripture. 

B.    THE   TEXT    OF    THE   SEPTUAGINT. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  is  still  in  an 
unsettled  state.  We  have  had  no  very  critical  edition  of  it  —  a  work 
greatly  needed.  Different  Greek  versions  made  subsequently  have 


'For  difference  of  authors  compare  ti^PloB,  preserved  as  fvhoncip  in  the  Pen 
tateuch  and  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  with  dMo^uAot  as  translated  in  the  other  books. 
HOB  translated  tyaaeK.  throughout  Chronicles  ;  in  the  other  books  Trdo^a. 
Einleitung,  p.  772. 

1  It  is  well  known  that  the  apostles  and  evangelists  do  not  always  quote  exactly 
from  the  Old  Testament,  but  often  write  according  to  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  or 
of  the  Septuagint.  In  I  Peter  iv,  18,  "  If  the  righteous  scarcely  be  saved,"  etc., 
we  have  in  the  Septuagint  the  exact  language  of  Prov.  xi,  31. 

4  See  Justin's  Dial,  cum  Tryphone,  c.  68,  71.  In  Megillath  Taanith  k  is  said 
that  darkness  came  over  the  world  for  three  days  when  the  version  was  made. 


54  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

been  more  01  less  mixed  with  it.     Of  these  versions,  the  most  import 
ant  are  the  following:  — 

1.  That  of  Aquila,  who,  according  to  Irenseus  l  and  others,  was  a 
other  Greek      Jewish  proselyte  (that  is,  a  convert  from  Heathenism 
versions.  to  Judaism),  born  in  Pontus,  most  probably  in  the  first 
part  of  the  second  century.     This  version,  made  for  the  Jews,  who 
preferred  it  to  the  Septuagint,  was  remarkably  literal,3  so  that  it  not 
unfrequently  gave  an  obscure  rendering. 

2.  The  version  of  Theodotion,  who,  according  to  Irenseus,  was  a 
Jewish  proselyte  of  Ephesus,  living  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.     It  appears  to  have  been  a  revised  edition  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  as  it  took  a  middle  course  between  the  Septuagint  and  the 
version  of  Aquila.     The  Greek  version  of  Daniel  used  by  the  early 
Christians  was  that  of  Theodotion. 

3.  The  version  of  Symmachus,  who  was  a  Jew,  possibly  an  Ebion- 
ite,  living  about  A.  D.  200.     This  version  was  not  so  literal  as  those 
of  Aquila  and  Theodotion,  on  account  of  which  it  was  praised  by 
Jerome. 

Besides  these  versions,  fragments  of  three  other  Greek  translations 
were  used  by  Origen  in  his  work  on  the  Scriptures,  and  marked 
fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh,  according  to  their  position,  the  work  of  un 
known  authors. 

As  the  Septuagint  had  become  greatly  corrupted,  either  through 
the  carelessness  of  copyists  or  the  daring  spirit  of  those  who  either 
added  to,  or  took  from,  the  text,  to  correct  it  according  to  their  fan 
cies,3  Origen,  the  greatest  scholar  of  his  age,  undertook  the  task  of 
comparing  the  different  Greek  versions  with  the  original  Hebrew,  in 
columns,  by  the  following  method.  He  placed  in  the  first  column 
the  original  text  in  Hebrew  characters  ;  in  the  second,  the  Hebrew 
text  with  Greek  letters,  giving  the  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  ;  in 
the  third,  the  text  of  Aquila,  as  being  next  to  the  Hebrew  in  accu 
racy  ;  in  the  fourth,  that  of  Symmachus;  in  the  fifth,  the  text  of  the 
Septuagint  ;  and  in  the  sixth,  that  of  Theodotion.  The  work  being 
arranged,  for  the  most  part,  in  six  columns,  it  was  called  Hexapla 
(e^aTrAa).  In  some  parts  the  fragments  of  three  other  versions  were 

used,  when,  properly  speaking,  nine  columns  were  formed. 
Toe  Hexapla.  . 

Ungen  corrected  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  by  means 
of  the  other  versions,  principally,  however,  by  means  of  TLeodotion, 


'Q;  QsodoTiuv  ypnyvevatv  6'E(j>Eoioe  nal  A/cvXaj-  6  HovrtKof,  afiQoTfpoi  'ovdaiot  noo* 
j^vroi.  —  Adver.  Hareses,  iii,  21. 

a  Take  this  as  an  example  :  kv  K.t$aka.lv>  CKTIGEV  6  iSeof  avv  rov  ovpavbv  not  ovv  r^» 
*—  Gen.  i,  i. 
'See  Com.  in  Matt.,  torn,  xv,  14,  opp.  iii. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  55 

inserting  fiom  this  version  what  was  wanting,  marking  the  insertion 
with  an  asterisk  and  the  name  of  the  source,  and  allowing  what  was 
not  in  the  Hebrew  to  stand,  but  designating  it  with  an  obelus.  This 
great  work  was,  most  likely,  never  completed.  Fifty  years  after  the 
death  of  Origen  it  was  brought  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  from 
its  obscurity  into  the  library  of  Pamphilus,  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine, 
where  Jerome  found  it  and  made  use  of  it.  Afterwards  it  is  not 
mentioned,  and  it  has  been  supposed  that  it  perished  when  the  Arabs 
captured  and  destroyed  Caesarea,  A.  D.  653.  Of  this  great  work  we 
have  only  some  fragments  remaining,  which  are  printed  in  the  edi 
tions  of  Origen.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  Hexapla  and  the 
Tetrapla  are  different  names  for  the  same  work.  But,  according  to 
Eusebius  and  Epiphanius,  the  Tetrapla  contained  simply  the  four 
principal  versions — Septuagint,  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus 
— in  four  columns ;  and,  according  to  some,  Origen  had  executed 
it  as  a  special  work,  a  synoptical  edition  of  the  four  translations.1 

As  the  course  pursued  by  Origen  in  supplementing  the  defects  of 
the  Greek  text  by  passages  from  the  version  of  Theodotion  had  led 
to  new  corruptions,  through  a  careless  use  of  his  work,  we  find  that 
at  the  close  of  the  third  century  Lucian,  presbyter  at  Antioch,  and 
Hesychius,  an  Egyptian  bishop,  undertook  the  revision  of  the  Sep 
tuagint.  Each  made  a  special  recension,  which  circulated  in  his 
own  territory.  Thus,  as  Jerome  informs  us,2  there  were  three  con 
flicting  texts  of  the  Septuagint — that  of  Hesychius,  in  Egypt ;  that 
of  Lucian,  in  use  from  Constantinople  to  Antioch ;  and  the  Palestin 
ian  Codices,  elaborated  by  Origen,  circulating  in  the  intermediate 
province.  Our  existing  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  exhibit  this 
confusion,  and  it  is  difficult  to  say  to  which  of  the  texts  or  recen 
sions  existing  in  the  time  of  Jerome  our  two  oldest  manuscripts  of 
the  Septuagint  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Codex  Alexandrinus, 
are  to  be  referred.3  Under  these  circumstances  the  criticism  of  the 
Septuagint  is  a  difficult  task.  Bleek,  however,  believes  that  the  furm 
of  the  two  different  texts  presented  by  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrian 
Codices  extends  back  beyond  the  time  of  Origen  into  the  apostolic 
age/ 

1  See  Jerome's  Preface  to  Chronicles.  9  Preface  to  Chronicles. 

"  The  Codex  Vaticanus  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  Co 
dex  Alexandrinus  to  the  last  part  of  the  fifth  century.  The  Codex  Sinailicus,  be 
longing  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  contains  only  about  twenty  nooks  of 
the  Old  Testament. 

4  Einleitung,  p.  787. 


56  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE    STUDY 

C.    EDITIONS  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

The  following  are  the  most  important  editions  of  the  Septua- 
gint : — 

I.  The  Roman  edition,  published  in  1587,  folio,  under  the  authority 
of  Pope  Sixtus  V.  It  was  the  joint  work  of  several  learned  men,  who 
were  engaged  upon  it  nine  years.  It  was  based  upon  the  text  of  the 
Vatican  Codex,  the  chasms  in  which  were  filled  up  from  two  other 
manuscripts  of  less  ancient  date.  The  Vatican  text  is  not,  indeed, 
always  followed,  but  its  orthography  is  changed  into  the  usual  Greek 
forms,  and  the  editors  have  sought  to  improve  what  they  regarded 
as  faulty  in  the  manuscript  without  always  indicating  their  deviation 
from  it.  Besides  the  text,  the  most  remarkable  readings  have  been 
introduced  from  many  other  manuscripts,  especially  from  the  Medi- 
cean,  at  Florence.1 

Upon  this  edition  the  following  are  based : — 

1.  The  London  Polyglott,  1657,  with  various  readings  from  the 
Alexandrian  Codex  and  from  other  manuscripts. 

2.  The  edition  of  Lambert  Boa,  Franeker,  1709,  with  prolegomena 
concerning  the  history  and  criticism  of  the  Septuagint.     Under  the 
text  stand  Greek  scholia  from  the  Roman  edition,  and  various  read 
ings  from  the  London  Polyglott.     The  text  is  not  everywhere  that 
of  the  Roman  edition,  although  Bos  assures  us  that  it  is. 

3.  The  edition  of  John  Reineccius,  Leipzig,  1730,  second  edition, 
I757«     The  Roman   text  is  accompanied  by  the  most  important 
variations  of  the  Alexandrian  and  other  manuscripts. 

4.  The  edition  of  Leander  Van  Ess,  Leipzig,  1824,  a  copy  of  the 
Roman  text. 

5.  That  of  Constantine  Tischendorf,  two  volumes.    Leipzig,  1850, 
fourth  edition,  1869.     This  is  a  copy  of  the  Vatican  text,  with  the 
various  readings  of  the  Alexandrian  Codex,  as   well  as  those  of 
Ephraem,  and  of  Frederico-Augustanus.    This  favorite  edition  con 
tains  rich  prolegomena,  and  at  the  end  the  Book  of  Daniel,  ac 
cording  to  the  Septuagint. 

II.  The  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  by  John  Ernst  Grabe,  Oxford, 
1707-1720,  four  volumes,  folio.  This  generally  follows  the  Alexan 
drian  Codex.  Grabe  himself,  who  died  in  1711,  published  only  the 
first  and  fourth  volumes.  The  two  intermediate  volumes  did  not 
appear  until  after  his  death.  The  second  was  published  by  Francis 
Lee,  and  the  third  by  an  unknown  editor,  from  the  materials  left  by 
Grabe.  The  editor  does  not  follow  the  Alexandrian  text  exclu- 

1  Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  788. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  57 

sively,  but  adopts  the  readings  of  other  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint 
where  he  regards  them  as  more  correct,  and,  like  Origen,  he  gener 
ally  supplies  the  omissions  of  the  Septuagint  from  other  translations. 
The  text  of  Grabe  was  printed  by  John  J.  Breitinger,  (Professor  at 
Zurich, )  1730-1732,  in  four  volumes,  folio,  with  the  removal,  however, 
of  the  typographical  errors,  and  with  the  introduction  into  the  text  of 
the  changes  considered  necessary  by  Grabe  in  his  prolegomena.  In 
all  these  editions  the  translation  of  the  canonical  Book  of  Daniel  is 
given  according  to  Theodotion ;  of  the  Alexandrian  translation  of 
the  book  but  a  single  codex  is  known,  namely,  that  in  the  library 
of  Cardinal  Chigi,  at  Rome. 

For  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  Septuagint,  rich  materials  are  con 
tained  in  an  edition  of  this  version  which  was  published  in  five  volumes, 
folio,  in  single  parts,  at  Oxford,  1798-1827.  The  work  was  undertaken 
by  Robert  Holmes,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Oxford,  who,  ge  tua  ^^ 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  in  1805,  had  published  only  the  edit,  of  Holme* 
first  part,  containing  the  Pentateuch.  The  four  remaining  a 
volumes  were  published  after  the  death  of  Holmes  by  James  Parsons. 
The  fourth  volume  contained  the  book  of  Daniel  both  according  to 
Theodotion  and  the  LXX.  The  text  of  the  work  is  the  Sixtine. 
Under  the  text  stand  readings  from  many  manuscripts,  collated  from 
ancient  writers  and  from  the  ancient  translations  of  the  Septuagint. 
The  remainder  of  the  ancient  Greek  translations,  excluding  the 
Septuagint,  preserved  to  us,  partly  in  the  citations  of  the  Church 
Fathers,  partly  in  the  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  LXX,  and  partly  in 
the  translations  of  some  of  the  books,  especially  the  Syrian,  which 
flowed  from  the  Hexapla,  have  been  published  at  different  times. 
We  may  especially  mention  Montfaugon's  edition,  Hexaplorum 
Origenis  Quae  Supersunt,  etc.,  two  vols.,  folio,  Paris,  1713.  Fred 
erick  Field  has  also  undertaken  a  new  edition  of  Origen's  Hexapla. 
The  work  is  entitled,  Otium  Norvicense,  sive  tentamen  de  reliquiis 
Aquilae,  Symmachi,  Theodotionis,  e  lingua  Syriaca  in  Graecam  con- 
vertendis,  Oxford,  1864.  There  also  appeared  at  Oxford,  in  1867, 
Origenis  Hexaplorum  Quae  Supersunt ;  sive  veterum  interpretum 
Graecorum  in  totum  Vet.  Test,  fragmenta.  This  work  is  not  yet 
completed.  The  remainder  of  the  Hexapla  is  also  found  in  the 
edition  of  Origen's  works,  by  Migne,  Paris. 

Of  the  Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testament  there  are  several 
Concordances  and  Lexicons. 

i.  The  oldest  is  that  of  Conrad  Kircher :  Concordantise  V.  T. 
Graec.-e  Ebraeis  vocibus  respondentes  no\vxQ7)<jToi>    Frankfort,  1607, 
folio.     This  work  is  properly  a  Hebrew-Greek  Concord 
ance.     The  Hebrew  words  are  arranged  alphabetically, 


55  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

and  under  them  are  placed  the  words  employed  by  the  Septuagint  tc 
express  them.  At  the  end  is  an  alphabetical  index.  The  passages 
are  also  indicated  where  each  of  the  Greek  words  is  found  in  the 
Apocrypha. 

2.  The  work  of  Abraham  Trommius :  Concordantiae  Grsecse  ver 
sionis  LXX,  etc.     Utrecht,  1718.     Two  vols.  folio. 

3.  That  of  John  Chr.  Biel :   Nov.  Thesaur.  Phil.  Sive  Lexicon  in 
LXX,  et  alios  interpretes  et  Scriptores  Apoc.  V.  T.      Haag,  1779- 
1780.     Three  vols.,  edited  by  Mutzenbrecher. 

4.  The  Concordance  of  John  Fried.  Schleusner:  Nov.  Thesaur. 
Phil.  Crit.  Sive  Lexicon  in  LXX.     Leipzig,  1820-1821.     Five  vols. 
This  work,  though  the  best,  has  great  defects,  and  in  no  way  meets 
the  wants  of  our  times. 

5.  BOckel,  who  died  in  1854,  commenced:  Nova  Clavis  in  Grsecos 
V.  T.,  Interpretes,  etc.1 

6.  On  the  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  there  appeared 
at  Leipzig,  in  1853,  a  work  by  Christ.  Abr.  Wahl,  entitled  :  Clavis 
librorum  Vet.  Test,  apocryphorum  philologica. 

2.    THE    TARGUMS. 

i.  TARGUMS  OF  ONKELOS  AND  JONATHAN  BEN  UZZIEL. — Next  to 
the  Septuagint,  in  point  of  antiquity,  are  the  Targumsa  (Chaldee 
translations)  on  the  Pentateuch  and  on  the  Prophets  ;  that  on  the 
former  by  Onkelos,  and  that  on  the  latter  by  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel. 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  our  information"-  respecting  the  authors  of 
these  translations  is  so  meagre  and  uncertain. 

According  to  the  Talmud,8  Onkelos  was  a  proselyte,  a  contempo 
rary  of  the  elder  Gamaliel,  the  instructor  of  St.  Paul.  The  ancient 
book  of  Sohar  makes  him  a  disciple  of  Hillel  and  Schammai.4  He 
lived,  accordingly,  about  the  time  of  Christ  or  a  little  before.  There 
is  no  good  reason  for  questioning  the  antiquity  of  this  Targum.  It 
is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  books  of  Moses  would  first  be  trans 
lated  into  Chaldee,  the  language  that  prevailed  in  Palestine  at  the 
time  of  Christ.  Mention  is  made  of  a  written  (Chaldee)  translation 
of  the  book  of  Job,  belonging  fo  the  middle  of  the  first  century,5  and 
also  of  far  older  Targums,  which  would  imply  the  greater  antiquity 

1  Bleek,  Einleitung,  pp.  787-792. 

•  fi^JjflS'Jgl,  from  Dtl3"|lPl,  translations ;  from  which  we  have  dragoman,  an  inter 
preter. 

1  Megilla,  f.  3,  c.  I.     Tosiphta  Schabb.,  c.  8. 

4  Ad  Levit.,  xviii,  4. 

^  Tosefta  Sabb.,  c.  14,  etc.,  in  Dr.  Zunz's  Gottesd.  Vortrage  der  Jud^n,  p.  62 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  50 

of  Onkelos.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  is  a  plain,  intelligible,  and 
generally  very  faithful  translation  ;  in  various  passages,  however,  to 
avoid  anthropomorphisms,  he  uses  "  Memra,"  Wcrd,  instead  of  Jeho 
vah  himself.  Two  passages  he  refers  to  the  Messiah  :  Gen.  xlix,  10, 
and  Num.  xxiv,  17. 

Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  the  translator  of  the  prophets,1  appears  to 
have  been  contemporary  with  Onkelos,  or  to  have  lived  a  little  later. 
The  rabbies  relate  that  he  was  a  disciple  of  the  elder  The  Tar  ma 
Hillel.*  In  another  Talmudic  passage,8  it  is  said  that  of  onkeiosand 
Jonathan,  the  son  of  Uzziel,  wrote  his  paraphrase  from  the 
mouth  of  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi.  The  Targum  of  Jonathan 
differs  from  that  of  Onkelos  in  dialect  and  style,  and  in  a  freer  trans 
lation  of  the  text.  The  passages  which  he  translates  as  Messianic 
are  numerous,  and  the  most  orthodox  Christian  commentator  could 
scarcely  refer  more  positively  to  the  Messiah.  He  has  been  sup 
posed,  in  several  places,  to  quote  Onkelos.4  That  Jonathan  explains 
so  many  passages  as  Messianic  which  were  differently  interpreted  by 
the  Jews  of  the  third  6  and  subsequent  centuries  is  a  proof  that  his 
translation  could  not  have  been  made  as  late  as  the  third  century. 
For  the  same  reason  it  could  not  have  been  made  in  the  second, 
nor,  perhaps,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  first ;  for  the  continual  appeal 
made  by  the  early  Christians  to  the  Messianic  prophecies  must  have 
led  the  Jews,  so.  far  as  possible,  to  give  a  different  explanation  of 
them. 

The  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  made  at  so  early  a  period, 
when  the  Hebrew  language  was  well  understood, /are  of  great  value 
in  explaining  the  Pentateuch  and  Prophets. 

2.  THE  TARGUM  OF  PSEUDO-JONATHAN  ON  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
— This  Targum  has  been  wrongly  ascribed  to  the  Jonathan  who 
translated  the  prophets.  Antiquity  knows  nothing  of  a  Targum  on 
the  Pentateuch  by  Jonathan.  The  authors  of  the  Jerusalem  Tal 
mud  6  know  nothing  of  a  Targum  of  Jerusalem,  but  they  speak  of  a 
Targum  of  Palestine.  Writers  until  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  cen 
tury,  however,  very  often  mention  the  Targum  of  Je-  The  Tarjfum of 
rusalem;  and  it  is  evident,  from  their  quotations  and  the  Jerusalem. 

*This  includes  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings. 

'Baba  Bathra,  f.  134,  c.  I.  *  Megilla,  f.  3,  c.  i. 

4  Targ.  Judg.  v,  26,  quotes  unchanged  Targ.  Deut.  xxii,  5  ;  Targ.  2  Kings  xiv,  6. 
almost  unchanged,  Targ.  Deut.  xxiv,  16  ;  Targ.  Jer.  xlviii,  45,  46  is  similar  to  Targ. 
Num.  xxi,  28,  29. 

•Jonathan  refers  Isaiah  lii.  13-liii  to  the  Messiah,  which  the  Jews  of  Origen'a 
time  referred  to  themselves. 

9  The  Jerusalem  Talmud  was  composed  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourtli  century 


60  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

clear  testimony  of  several  writers,  that  it  embraced  the  whole  Penta 
teuch.1  Nor  does  it  appear  to  have  been  confined  to  the  Penta 
teuch  ;  for  Dr.  Zunz  observes  that  the  T argum  of  Jerusalem  is 
quoted  by  the  rabbies  of  the  Middle  Ages  as  containing  paraphrases 
on  the  Judges,  Samuel,  and  various  prophets,  from  which  he  infers 
that  the  Jerusalem  Targum  contained  translations  of  all  the  Books 
of  the  Old  Testament.8  He  concludes  that  Pseudo-Jonathan  is  no 
other  than  the  Targttm  of  Palestine  or  Targum  of  Jerusalem,  of 
which  our  existing  Targum  of  Jerusalem  is  only  a  recension  or 
abridgment.  He  infers,  on  various  grounds,  that  it  was  written  in 
the  second  half  of  the  seventh  century.  Its  language  is  a  Palestin 
ian  dialect  of  Aramaean,  and  it  must  have  originated  in  Syria  or  Pal 
estine,  perhaps  in  Caesarea,  (on  account  of  Num.  xxiv,  19.)  Its  most 
ancient  title  justifies  this  view.  Its  linguistic  character  differs 
widely  from  that  of  Onkelos,  but  it  is  very  similar  in  expressions, 
style,  and  grammar  to  the  Talmud  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Targums 
on  the  Hagiographa.3 

3.  THE  TARGUM  OF  JERUSALEM. — This  Targum,  as  we  have  al 
ready  seen,  is  an  abridgment  or  recension  of  Pseudo-Jonathan.     It 
consists  merely  of  fragments  of  the  Pentateuch. 

4.  TARGUMS  ON  THE  HAGIOGRAPHA. — Targums  or  paraphrases 
exist  on  all  the  books  of  the  Hagiographa,  with  the  exception  of 
Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.     The  ground  of  this  exception  lies 
in  the  books  themselves,  as  they  were  in  part  originally  written  in 
Chaldee. 

The  paraphrases  of  the  Psalms,  of  Job,  and  of  the  Proverbs,  which 
we  now  possess,  have  the  same  linguistic  character,  and  must,  there 
fore,  have  been  written  at  nearly  the  same  time  and  in  the  same 
country,  perhaps  Syria.  The  Targum  on  the  Proverbs  adheres  quite 
closely  to  the  text,  while  that  of  the  other  two  books  is  more  peri 
phrastic.  The  Targum  on  Job  is  mentioned  quite  early,  but  that 
on  Proverbs  bears  traces  of  a  later  period. 

The  Targum  on  the  books  of  Ruth,  Esther,  Lamentations,  Eccle- 
siastes,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  departs  widely  from  the  method  of 
a  translation,  and  indulges  in  a  free  rhetorical  style.  The  work  was 
executed  by  one  author,  and  belongs  to  a  period,  very  probably  long 
after  that  of  the  Talmuds.  The  erroneous  opinion  that  Rabbi 
Joseph,  the  blind,  who  died  A.  D.  325,  was  the  author  of  the  Targums 
on  the  Hagiographa,  was  already  refuted  by  authors  of  the  thirteenth 
century.  On  Esther  there  are  two  Targums.  A  Targum  on  the 
Chronicles  exists  in  two  editions. 

1  Dr.  Zunz,  Gottesd.  Vortriige,  p.  66. 
.,  \\.  79.  "Dr.  Zunz,  p.  73. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  61 

The  Targum  of  Onkelos  was  first  published,  with  the  Hebrew  text, 
in  Jarchi's  Commentary,  at  Bologna,  in  1482.  Other  editions  followed 
in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  and  in  the  Bomberg  Bibles, 
published  at  Venice. 

In  the  great  Rabbinical  Bibles  published  at  Basel,  by  Buxtorf,  in 
1 6 1 8,  3  vols.  folio,  republished  in  1718,  the  Targums  of  Onkelos,  Jeru 
salem,  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  and  Targums  on  the  Hagiographa,  are 
inserted.  The  Torgum  of  Onkelos  was  published  in  the  Paris  and 
London  Polyglotts  \n  1657.  A  critical  dissertation  on  the  Targum 
of  Onkelos  was  published  in  1830  at  Vienna  by  Sam.  Dav.  ^^  editiona 
Luzatto.  Winer  published  a  work — De  Jonathanis  in  of  Onkelos  and 
Pent.  Parap.  Chal.  spec.  I.  Erl. — in  1823.  Jonathan  was 
published  with  the  Hebrew  text,  Onkel.,  Targ.  Jems.,  and  Rashi's 
Commentary,  by  Asher  Phorins,  Venice,  in  1590-1594.  The  Tar 
gums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  have  been  translated  by  Etheridge. 


3.   THE    SYRIAC    TRANSLATION. 

This  version  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  called  the  Peshito 
—plain,  literal,  on  account  of  its  fidelity  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
texts — was  made,  most  probably,  in  the  second  century.  Ephraem, 
the  learned  Syrian,  who  died  A.  D.  378,  calls  it  "  our  version,"1  and 
long  before  his  time  it  had  gained  universal  reception  in  the  Syrian 
Church.  The  New  Testament,  it  seems,  was  translated  into  Syriac 
about  the  same  time  as  the  Old.  The  version  was  already  old  in  the 
time  of  Ephraem,  for  some  of  its  expressions  were  obscure  to  him.8 

The  Syriac  version  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made  from  the  He 
brew  text.  Of  this  there  is  the  strongest  internal  evidence.  The 
Targum  of  Onkelos  seems  to  have  been  consulted  in  the  translation 
of  the  Pentateuch.  Certainly  there  is  a  striking  resemblance  be 
tween  much  of  the  Syrian  Pentateuch  and  Onkelos.  The  Peshito 
version  generally  adheres  closely  to  the  Hebrew,  and  gives  an  excel 
lent  rendering  of  the  original.  Occasionally,  however,  it  favours  some 
of  the  readings  of  the  Septuagint.  It  was,  in  all  probability,  executed 
by  several  Jewish  Christians.  It  extends  over  the  canonical  books 
alone,  and  contains  none  of  the  additions  to  the  Hebrew  text  found 
in  the  Septuagint.  The  version  was  first  published  in  the  Paris,  and 
then  in  the  London,  Polyglott.  The  British  Bible  Society  had  an 
edition  of  the  Peshito  Bible  published  for  the  use  of  the  Christians 
of  Malabar,  by  Prof.  Lee,  who  collated  several  manuscripts  for  the 
purpose.  It  appeared  in  London,  1823,  in  410. 

1  Comment  on  i  Sam.  xxiv,  4. 

2  Wiseman's  Horse  Syriacse,  p.  121. 


62  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

4.    THE    LATIN   VERSIONS. 

As  Christianity  spread  throughout  portions  of  Italy  in  the  first 
century,  and  in  Northern  Africa,  where  Latin  was  used,  certain 
ly  as  early  as  the  second,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  the  Bible 
would  at  a  very  early  period  be  translated  into  Latin.  We  accord 
ingly  find  that  a  version  in  that  language,  called  the  Itala,  was  made 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.1  It  was  a  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  from  the  Septuagint.  In  the  time  of  Augustine 
many  translations  of  the  Old  Testament  existed,  but  he  preferred 
the  Itala  to  all  others  on  account  of  both  its  close  adherence  to  the 
letter  and  the  perspicuity  of  its  language.8  It  was  made  from  the 
common  text  of  the  Septuagint,  unaffected  by  the  Hex- 
apla  of  Origen.  The  great  number  of  Latin  versions 
producing  confusion,  Jerome,  after  revising  the  text  of  the  New  Tes 
tament,  undertook  the  revision  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment.  His  revision  extended  to  nearly  all  the  Old  Testament  books. 
Of  this  work  we  have  only  the  Psalter  and  the  book  of  Job.  The 
greater  part  of  the  revision  perished  during  his  life. 

While  Jerome  abode  at  Bethlehem  he  made  a  Latin  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  Hebrew  text  during  the  years 
392-405,  a  work  of  great  merit.  His  profound  knowledge  of  Hebrew, 
derived  from  the  rabbies,  his  acquaintance  with  previous  versions, 
and  his  critical  judgment  and  carefulness,  admirably  fitted  him  for 
his  task.  He  did  not  translate  the  Bible  in  the  order  of  the  books 
that  compose  it,  but  commenced  with  "  Kings,"  for  the  reason,  per 
haps,  that  he  regarded  these  books  as  the  less  difficult  to  translate. 
At  first  his  work  met  with  great  opposition,  as  might  have  been  ex 
pected  from  its  many  departures  from  the  existing  Latin  versions ; 
but  it  gradually  came  into  use,  so  that  in  the  seventh  century  its 
authority  was  recognized  by  the  Western  Church,3  and, 
ate!  under  the  name  of  Vulgata,  (Vulgate,)  it  is  still  consid 
ered  by  the  Church  of  Rome  as  a  standard  authority. 
In  the  course  of  a  few  centuries,  however,  the  version  of  Jerome 
was  greatly  corrupted  by  introducing  into  it  passages  from  the  Sep. 
tuagint,  and  from  the  Latin  translations  which  were  in  use  before  his 

1  Tertullian,  about  A.  D.  220,  speaks  of  the  Latin  version. 

9  Qui  scripturas  ex  Hebrasa  lingua  in  Grsecam  verterunt,  numerari  possunt :  La- 
tini  autem  interpretes  nullo  modo.  ...  In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus  Itala  cae- 
tens  preferatur  :  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  sententise. — De  Doc 
Christ.,  liber  ii,  cap.  xi,  xv.  Of  the  Itala  some  portions  are  extant. 

.'The  Septuagint  is  the  authority  in  the  Greek  Church. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  G3 

time.  Various  attempts  were  made  to  improve  the  Vulgate.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century  Alcuin,  at  the  command  of 
Charkmagne,  made  a  revision  of  it.  Also  in  the  eleventh  century 
Lanfranc,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  Cardinal  Nicolaus,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  undertook  new  revisions. 

In  1546  the  Council  of  Trent  made  the  Vulgate  the  standard  text 
of  the  Bible,  and  declared  that  "in  public  lectures,  disputations,  in 
preaching,  and  in  expositions,  it  shall  be  held  as  authen-  Recognition  of 
tir,  and  that  no  one  shall  dare  or  presume,  on  any  pre-  JjJ®  Tridentine 
text  whatever,  to  reject  it."1  As  the  Council  had  de-  council, 
clared  the  Vulgate  to  be  authoritative,  it  was  necessary  that  the 
Council  itself,  or  the  Pope,  should  select  one  edition,  or  order  anew 
edition  to  be  prepared,  which  should  be  the  standard.  The  Pope 
ordered  a  new  revision,  and  in  the  preface  to  the  Vulgate  it  is 
stated  that  Pius  IV.  commissioned  some  of  the  most  eminent  car 
dinals  and  distinguished  linguists  to  prepare  an  accurate  edition 
of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  by  using  the  most  ancient  manuscripts,  exam 
ining  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals,  and  consulting  the  commen 
taries  of  the  Fathers.  Pius  V.  continued  the  work,  but  left  it  unfin 
ished.  Sixtus  V.  ordered  the  work,  at  length  finished,  to  be  printed, 
and  when  it  came  forth  from  the  press  it  contained  so  many  typo 
graphical  errors  that  he  determined  to  subject  it  to  a  new  revision, 
but  was  prevented  by  death  from  executing  his  design.  Succeeding 
pontiffs,  on  account  of  the  shortness  of  their  reigns,  accomplished 
nothing,  and  it  was  reserved  to  Clement  VIII.  to  complete  it,  in  the 
beginning  of  his  pontificate,  in  1592."  The  subsequent  editions 
were  reprints  of  this.  The  Old  Testament  Canon  contains  Baruch, 
Judith,  Tobias,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  i  and  2  Maccabees, 
in  addition  to  the  Hebrew  Canon,  as  determined  by  the  Council  of 
Trent.  The  Vulgate  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  present  form,  is 
not  a  verv  faithful  translation  of  the  Hebrew  text. 


5.    EGYPTIAN    TRANSLATIONS. 

About  A.  D.  200  two  Egyptian  versions  of  the  Bible,  which  are 
partly  still  extant,  were  made.  They  were  the  Coptic  or  Memphitic, 
in  the  dialect  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  the  Sahidic,  in  the  dialect  of 
Upper  Egypt.  It  is  not  certain  which  of  these  versions  is  the  older. 
The  Old  Testament  of  both  is  based  on  the  Septuagint. 

1  In  publicis  lectionibus,  disputationibus,  prcedicationibus  et  expositionibus  pro 
authentica  habeatur,  et  ut  nemo  iiiam  rejiLcre  quovis  prsetextu  audeat  vel  praesn- 
inat. — Sess.  iv,  Dec.  2. 

*  We  have  translated  and  abridged  a  part  of  the  Latin  preface. 


64  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 


6.   THE    ^THIOPIC   VERSION. 

The  ^Ethiopians,  or  Abyssinians,  have  in  their  sacred  language  (the 
Geez)  a  version  of  the  whole  Bible,  made  not  later  than  the  year  400. 
The  author  is  unknown.1  The  Old  Testament  appears  to  have  been 
translated  chiefly  from  the  Septuagint. 


7.  THE   ARMENIAN    VERSION. 

Although  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Armenia  as  early  as 
the  second  century,  the  Armenians  had  no  version  of  their  own  un 
til  Miesrob  gave  them  an  alphabet,  and  translated  the  Bible  into 
their  language  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  fifth  century.  He  was 
assisted  in  the  work  of  translation  by  two  of  his  disciples,  Joannes 
Ekelensis  and  Josephus  Palnensis,  who  were  sent  to  Alexandria 
to  acquire  a  better  knowledge  of  Greek.  Before  this  time  "the 
Syrian  version  of  the  Bible,  the  authority  of  which  was  recognized  in 
the  Persian  Church,  had  been  used  in  Armenia,  and  hence  an  in 
terpreter  was  always  needed  to  translate  into  the  vernacular  tongue 
the  portions  of  Scripture  read  in  public  worship."  a 

The  version  of  the  Old  Testament  closely  follows  the  Septuagint, 
with  the  exception  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  the  translation  of  which 
was  made  from  Theodotion.  The  text  followed  is  a  mixed  one, 
agreeing  with  none  of  our  chief  recensions.  The  charge  that  it  has 
been  interpolated  from  the  Peshito-Syriac  is  unfounded ;  nor  is  it 
certain  that  it  was  interpolated  from  the  Vulgate  in  the  thirteenth 
century." 

8.  THE   GEORGIAN   VERSION. 

In  the  sixth  century  the  Georgians,  after  the  example  of  the  Ar 
menians,   from   whom  they  obtained  the   Scriptures,  procured  for 
themselves  a  translation  of  the  Bible.     The  New  Testament  was 
translated  from  the  original  Greek,  and  the  Old  from  the  Septuagim 
The  authors  are  not  known.4 

9.  THE   GOTHIC   VERSION. 

Ulphilas,  Bishop  of  the  Goths,  invented  for  them  an  alphabet,  and 
translated  the  Bible  *  into  their  language  soon  after  the  middle  of 

'DeWette,  p.  118. 

•  Neander,  Hist.  Christian  Religion  and  Church,  vol.  ii,  pp.  113,  114. 
rDe  Wette,  p.  120.  *  Ibid.,  p.  121. 

*  Fragments  of  this  version  are  still  extant 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  6~> 

the  fourth  centary.  "  He  is  said,  however,  to  have  omitted  the 
books  of  the  Kings,  to  which  the  books  of  Samuel,  also,  were  then 
reckoned,  that  nothing  might  be  presented  to  foster  the  warlike  spirit 
of  the  Goths." ' 

10.    THE   SLAVONIAN   VERSION. 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  ninth  century  Cyril  translated  the  Holy 
Scriptures  into  the  tongue  of  the  Slavonians. 

II.  ARABIC   VERSIONS. 

From  R.  Saadias  Gaon,  who  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth 
century,  we  have  an  Arabic  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of 
Isaiah,  of  an  explanatory,  paraphrastic  character,  in  harmony  with 
the  Targums  and  the  Rabbinical  expositions. 

There  was  a  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  made  by  an  African 
Jew  of  the  thirteenth  century,  published  by  Erpenius. 

12.   THE   SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH,  AND    ITS    VERSIONS. 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  differing  but  little  from  that  of  the 
Jews,  and  being  at  least  twenty-three  or  four  hundred  years  old,  is 
an  independent  witness  to  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Of  the 
Hebrew-Samaritan  Pentateuch  there  are  two  versions.  The  one 
which  the  Samaritans  call  Tarjfim,  a  species  of  Chaldee,  differing, 
as  we  find,  from  both  the  Chaldee  of  Onkelos  and  the  Peshito-Syriac. 
The  high  priest  of  the  Samaritans  informed  me  that  it  was  made 
about  eighteen  hundred  years  ago.3  This  statement  seems  probable, 
the  time  coinciding  very  nearly  with  the  age  of  the  Targums  of  On 
kelos  and  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel.  The  spread  of  the  Chaldee  Ian- 
guage  through  Palestine  made  all  these  versions  necessary.  The 
Targum  of  the  Samaritans  follows  closely  their  Pentateuch.  Onkelos 
may  have  been  consulted  in  the  translation,  but  it  does  not  always 
agree  with  him. 

The  Samaritans  have  also  a  version  of  their  Pentateuch  in  Arabic, 
made,  as  the  high  priest  informed  me,  in  the  thirteenth  century.  It 
is  the  opinion  of  some  that  the  Samaritans  had  a  Greek  version  of 
their  Pentateuch,  as  quotations  of  it,  under  the  name  rd  2a/japem«dv, 
in  Greek,  are  found  in  some  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  But  it 
is  doubtful  that  such  a  version  ever  existed,  and  the  extracts  may 
have  been  simply  the  Samaritan  readings  translated  into  Greek. 

1  Neander's  Hist.  Christian  Religion  and  Church,  vol.  ii,  p.  126. 
1  See  my  Journey  to  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land  in  1869,  1870,  pp.  183-185. 
VOL.  I.— 5 


66  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  VI. 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  —  HISTORY  OF  VIEWS 
RESPECTING  IT—  DOCUMENT  HYPOTHESIS—  VIEWS  OF  THE 
NEW  CRITICAL  SCHOOL. 

rpHE  Founder  of  Christianity  and  his  disciples,  in  common  with  the 
•••  Tews  of  that  period,  assume  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta 
teuch.1  Philo9  of  Alexandria  speaks  of  Moses  as  the  writer  of  sa 
cred  books;  and  Josephus8  attributes  to  him  five  books,  and  re 
marks  :  "  He  (Moses)  gives  them  (the  Hebrews)  the  laws  4  in  a 
book."  "  All  things  have  been  written  as  he  left  them  :  we  have 
added  nothing  to  them  for  embellishment."  The  Talmudists,6  also, 
speak  of  Moses  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  exception 
of  the  last  chapter.  And  this  has  been  the  unanimous  judgment  ot 
the  Jewish  Church.  The  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  attributed 
the  Pentateuch  to  Moses.  Nor  does  the  language  of  Jerome  imply 
any  doubt  upon  this  point  :  "  Whether  you  regard  Moses  as  the  au 
thor  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  Ezra  as  the  restorer  of  the  same  work,  I 
do  not  object."'  Here  Jerome,  like  many  of  the  other  Fathers  of 
the  early  Church,  supposes  that  the  books  of  Moses  were  lost  in  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  and  restored  by  Ezra.  He  intends  to  express 
no  doubt  about  Moses  having  been  their  original  author.  Occasion 
ally  the  voice  of  a  Gnostic  heretic  was  raised  against  the  credibility 
of  the  Pentateuch,  or  its  Mosaic  authorship. 

In  the  eleventh  century  Isaac  ben  Salomo,  a  Jewish  scholar,  as 
serted  that  the  passage  in  Gen.  xxxvi,  31,  concerning  the  dukes  of 


ir6vTe,Jlivf,  and  rettyof,  a  book,  57  Tiwrdrev^of.  The  term  is  as  old  as  the 
first  part  of  the  third  century,  being  used  by  Tertullian  (Adv.  Marcionem,  i,  10), 
and  by  Origen  (In  Joannem,  torn,  xiii,  cap.  26).  The  names  by  which  the  differ 
ent  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  called  in  English  are  taken  from  the  Septuagint. 
The  following  are  Hebrew  names,  with  the  corresponding  English  ones  :  D^tSXin. 
Bereshith  (In  the  beginning),  Genesis  ;  tn?3lZ3  n^HI,  Veelleh  shemoth  (And  these  are 
the  names),  Exodus  ;  fcOpTl,  Vayyikra  (And  he  called),  Leviticus  ;  1S1^3»  Bemidh- 
bar  (In  the  desert),  Numbers;  tn^Jin  rft»,  Elleh  haddebarim  (The?e  are  the 
words),  Deuteronomy.  The  English  names  from  the  Greek  are  expressive,  but  the 
Hebrew  are  not,  being  generally  the  first  words  of  the  book. 
•Vita  Mosis,  ii,  136.  'Contra  Ap.,  i,  442.  4  Liber  iv  3,  3,  4. 

*  Baba  Batra  in  Fiirst,  Uber  den  Kanon,  etc.,  pp.  8,  9. 

•  Sive  Moysen  dicere  volueris  auctorem  Pentateuchi  sive  Ezram  ejusdem  instau- 
ratorem  operis.  non  recuso.  —  De  Perpet.  Virgin.  Beat.  Maria  liber,  212. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  67 

Edom  and  kings  of  Israel,  was  not  written  until  the  time  of  Jehosh- 
aphat.  In  the  next  century  we  find  Aben  Ezra,  a  learned  rabbi,  doubt 
ing  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  a  few  passages  in  the  Pentateuch,  which 
he  seemed  to  regard  as  later  additions  to  the  original ;  but  he  expresses 
no  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  attributed  Deut. 
xxxiv  to  Joshua.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  Carlstadt 
thought  the  proposition  that  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  five  books 
could  be  maintained ;  and  he  assigned  as  a  reason  that  nobody  but 
a  fool  could  believe  that  Moses  wrote  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteron 
omy,  which  gives  an  account  of  his  own  death.  In  the  last  half  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  Masius,  a  Roman  Catholic  lawyer,  Doairtgtnreia- 
in  his  Commentary  on  Joshua,  denied  that  the  Pentateuch  tiontothePen- 
in  its  present  form  could  have  proceeded  from  Moses;  but  fc 
he  claimed  that  it  is  the  work  of  Ezra,  or  some  other  inspired  man. 
Thomas  Hobbes,  an  English  deist,  about  1650,  remarks,  in  his  "Levi 
athan,"  that  "  the  Pentateuch  seems  to  have  been  written  concern 
ing  Moses  rather  than  by  Moses."  About  the  same  time  Isaac  Peyrere 
asserted,  on  various  grounds,  that  the  Pentateuch  could  not  be  the 
work  of  Moses.  He  supposed  that  Moses  kept  a  journal  of  the  Ex 
odus,  of  the  journeyings  in  the  desert,  and  of  his  legislation,  to  which 
journal  he  prefixed  a  history  of  former  times,  and  even  of  the  time 
before  Adam.  According  to  Peyrere  these  autographs  of  Moses  per 
ished,  and  our  books  are  extracts  made  at  a  far  later  period,  and  not 
immediately  from  them  in  any  case. 

Spinoza,  a  Dutch  Jew,  in  his  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus, 
A.  D.  1670,  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  the  work 
of  Moses.  He  adduced,  in  support  of  his  view,  several  single  pas 
sages,  and  the  phenomena  that  pervade  the  whole  work,  especially 
the  fact  that  Moses  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  He  suspects 
that  our  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  the  other  historical  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  their  present  form,  were  composed  by  Ezra,  who  first 
wrote  Deuteronomy,  and  then  the  other  four  books,  to  which  he  at 
tached  the  former.  In  1678  Richard  Simon,  a  French  critic  of  great 
learning  and  acuteness,  published  a  Critical  History  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  he  attributes  the  written  composition  of  the 
laws  to  Moses  himself.  The  history  of  his  times,  he  supposes, 
Moses  had  written  down  by  public  annalists  whom  he  appointed, 
after  the  custom  of  the  Egyptians.  Out  of  the  different  writings  of 
these  annalists,  who  worked  without  mutual  connexion,  and  out  of  the 
Mosaic  Law  Book,  our  present  Pentateuch  was  composed.  In  1685 
John  Le  Clerc  attributed  the  Pentateuch  to  an  Israelitish  priest,  who 
was  sent  back  from  Babylon  by  the  Assyrian  king,  after  the  captivity 
of  the  ten  tribes,  to  instruct  the  colonists  in  the  service  of  Jehovah. 


68  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

But  in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis,  published  in  1693,  he  retracted 
his  former  view,  and  sought  to  vindicate  for  Moses  the  whole  Pen 
tateuch,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  interpolations,  and  to  refute 
the  objections  that  had  been  made  against  its  genuineness.  He 
maintained  the  opinion  that  Moses  composed  Genesis  from  written 
documents,  in  which  the  patriarchs  themselves  had  written  the 
events  of  th  sir  lives.  Not  long  after  this  Anton  Van  Dale,  a  Dutch 
scholar,  again  expressed  the  opinion  that  Ezra  compiled  the  Penta 
teuch  from  the  Law  Book  of  Moses,  and  from  other  historical  and 
prophetical  writings. 

In  England,  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Lord  Bo- 
lingbroke  attacked  the  whole  Mosaic  system  with  great  virulence, 
and  intimated  that  the  Pentateuch  was  forged  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges,1  and  lost  during  the  Babylonian  captivity.  There  were, 
however,  but  a  very  few  genuine  scholars  who  doubted  or  disputed 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Carpzov,  who  lived  in 
the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  in  his  Introduction,  made  a 
vigorous  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  John  Gott 
fried  Hasse,  in  a  work  published  in  1785,  took  the  ground  that  the 
Pentateuch  had  been  compiled,  at  the  time  of  the  exile,  from  ancient 
monuments,  partly  Mosaic,  which,  however,  were  very  much  enlarged 
and  altered.  He  afterward  changed  this  view,  and  held  the  Penta 
teuch  to  be  the  work  of  Moses,  which,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  had  re 
ceived  only  single  glosses,  additions,  and  supplements,  until  Ezra 
finally  gave  it  the  finishing  touch. 

John  David  Michaelis,  professor  in  Gottingen,  one  of  the  ablest 
men  and  greatest  scholars  of  his  age,  was  of  rationalistic  tendencies; 
Rationalistic  nevertheless,  in  his  Introduction,  in  1787,  he  defended  the 
defense  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  (f  in  1791).  Johann 
Pentateuch.  Gottfried  Eichhorn,  Professor  at  Gottingen  (*  in  1752, 
f  in  1827),  a  man  of  vast  erudition  and  great  genius,  was  likewise  a 
rationalist ;  but  he  defended  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
his  Introduction,  which  appeared  in  1782.  He  repeated  this 
defence  in  the  second  and  third  editions.  "  He  rather  turns  the 
opponents,"  says  Havernick,  "  into  contempt  and  scorn,  than  refutes 
them."  In  his  fourth  edition,  in  1823,  he  modified  his  views  re 
specting  the  Pentateuch,  but  still  held  that  the  greatest  part  of  it 
was  written  by  Moses  himself,  especially  the  laws,  the  whole  of  Levit 
icus,  and  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  end  of  chap,  xxxii ;  that 
the  history  of  the  march  of  the  Israelites  was  composed  by  contem 
poraries  of  Moses;  that  Genesis  was  compiled  from  old  documents 

'Leland,  View  of  Deist.  Writers,  vol.  ii,  p.  375. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  69 

written  before  the  time  of  Moses;  and  that  the  whole  Pentateuch 
was  collected  and  arranged  in  the  interval  between  Joshua  and  Sam 
uel,  and  that  afterward  only  single  glosses  were  added. 

The  deism  of  England  and  France  was  propagated  to  a  large  ex 
tent    in  Germany  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth    woifenbuttel 
century,  and    found  a  powerful  support  in  the  Wolfen-   Fra*?ments- 
biittel  Fragments,  written  by  Reimarus,  and  published  by  Lessing  in 
1773  and  1777.     In  these  writings  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  violently  assailed,1  and  the  truth  of  divine  revelation  positively 
denied.     These  writings  threw  Germany  into  a  ferment,  and  the  at 
tacks  on  the  genuinerfess  of  the  Pentateuch  were  renewed  with  great 
vigour,  and,  indeed,  are  still  kept  up. 

With  the  denial  of  divine  revelation  and  its  accompaniments,  mir 
acles  and  prophecies,  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  could  not 
be  long  admitted,  for  the  concession  would  draw  after  it  a  miracu 
lous  history  which  no  ingenuity  or  acuteness  could  explain  on  nat 
ural  principles.8  There  are,  however,  some  exceptional  cases,  in 
which  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  is  not  fully  acknowledged 
on  the  part  of  those  who  have  no  such  abhorrence  of  the  supernat 
ural.  Fulda  in  1791,  Corrodi  in  1792,  and  Nachtigal  somewhat* 
later,  while  denying  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  attributed 
some  portion  of  it  to  Moses. 

But  the  most  elaborate  attack  on  the  genuineness  of  the  Penta 
teuch  was  made  by  Vater  in  1805.  He  sought  to  show  vater  and  De 
that  it  could  not  have  been  written  either  by  Moses  or  Wette- 
in  the  Mosaic  age  :  that  if  any  thing  was  written  by  Moses  or  in  the 
Mosaic  age — possibly  only  a  few  fragments  at  most — it  is  not  pre 
served  in  its  original  form.  De  Wette  (f  in  1849)  followed  Vater  in 
point  of  time,  though  he  wrote  quite  independently  of  him,  and  pub 
lished  the  first  part  of  his  Introduction  in  1806.  He  here  wholly 
denies  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  allows  no  por 
tion  of  it  to  be  older  than  the  age  of  David.3 

In  the  first  part  of  the  present  century  the  genuineness  of  the 

1  See  Hengstenberg,  Genuineness  of  Pentateuch. 

2  Hence  Strauss,  to  make  way  for  his  mythical  treatment  of  the  gospel  history, 
denied  that  any  one  of  the  Gospels  was  written  by  an  eyewitness  of  Christ's  life. 
In  his  third  edition  of  the  Life  of  Jesus,  he  seemed  disposed  to  abandon  his  ob 
jections  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  but  resumed  them  again  in  his 
fourth  edition,  principally,  as  he  confesses,  because  "without  them  one  could  not 
escape  from  believing  the  miracles  of  Christ."     A  great  admission. 

8  As  De  Wette  may  be  considered  a  representative  of  extreme  negative  criticism, 
we  shall  consider  his  views  more  at  large  in  the  discussion  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  Pentateuch. 


70  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Pentateuch  was  vigorously  defended  by  Kelle,  Fritzsche,  Jahn,  Ro- 
senmiiller,  Hug,  Sack,  Graves,  Meyer,  and  others. 

Herbst,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  published  after 
his  death,  places  the  final  revision  of  the  Pentateuch,  from  the  writ 
ings  of  Moses  and  other  ancient  monuments,  in  the  age  of  David. 
Bertholdt,  in  his  Biblical  Introduction,  in  1813,  holds  that  there  is 
much  in  the  Pentateuch  which  is  really  from  Moses,  and  that  the 
whole  of  it  was  collected  and  brought  into  its  present  form  be 
tween  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Saul  and  the  end  of  the  reign 
Voiney,  Hart-  °^  Solomon.  Volney,  in  1814,  published  the  view  that 
mann,  Von  the  Pentateuch,  in  its  present  form,  was  composed  of 
genuine  Mosaic  documents,  and  writings  of  a  later  date, 
by  the  high  priest  Hilkiah,  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah.  The  four 
following  writers  have  carried  their  doubts  of,  and  hostility  to,  the 
Pentateuch  to  an  extreme  point:  Hartmann,  in  his  work  on  the 
Pentateuch,  published  in  1831,  denies  the  existence  of  the  art  of 
writing  in  the  Mosaic  age>  and  places  the  beginning  of  written  com 
position  in  the  age  of  Samuel.  Von  Bohlen,in  1835,  published  the 
view  that  Deuteronomy  is  the  oldest  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  but 
that  this  did  not  appear  until  the  time  of  King  Josiah,  and  the 
entire  Pentateuch  not  before  the  Babylonian  exile.  In  the  same 
year  Vatke  and  George  published  their  opinions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
in  which  they  both  deny  that  Moses  had  any  share  in  the  composi 
tion  of  the  work. 

Gesenius,  the  celebrated  Hebrew  lexicographer  and  grammarian, 
Gesenius  and  was,  during  the  most  of  his  life,  an  advocate  of  the  late 
staneiin.  origin  of  the  Pentateuch ;  yet  he  seems  to  have  finally 

modified  his  opinion,  for  he  expresses  himself  thus  doubtfully  in  the 
thirteenth  edition  of  his  Hebrew  Grammar  :  "  It  is  still  a  subject  of 
critical  controversy  whether  the  Pentateuch  proceeded,  entire  or 
in  part,  from  Moses."1  J.  J.  St£helm,  in  his  work  published  in 
1843,  refers  the  arrangement  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  its  present  form, 
to  the  age  of  Saul,  and  thinks  it  may  be  the  work  of  Samuel  or  of 
one  of  his  disciples. 

J.  Astruc,  a  French  physician  and  professor  belonging  to  the 
Document  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  his  anonymous  work  pub- 
hypothesis.  Hshed  in  1753  (Original  Memoirs,  which  it  appears  that 
Moses  used  in  composing  the  Book  of  Genesis),  first  called  atten 
tion  to  the  divine  names  in  different  portions  of  the  book,  as  fur. 
nishing  proof  of  different  sources  employed  in  its  construction. 
Astruc  supposed  that  there  were  two  principal  sources — an  Elohim 
(God)  document  and  a  Jehovah  (Lord)  document — the  elements 

Leipzig,  1842. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  71 

of  which  run  through  the  whole.  He  supposed,  that  besides  these 
there  were  ten  other  documents,  of  which  single  frag-  views  of  A»- 
ments  were  introduced.  Astruc  held  that  from  these  truc- 
twelve  documents  Moses  composed  the  whole  of  Genesis  by  copy 
ing  them  into  twelve  separate  columns,  but  that  through  the  fault 
of  copyists  some  of  the  passages  were  afterward  misplaced. 

The  views  of  Astruc  at  first  attracted  little  notice,  but  the  seed 
sown  yielded,  in  due  time,  a  rich  harvest  of  hypotheses.  Eichhorn 
conjectured,  that  at  the  basis  of  the  Buok  of  Genesis  there  lay  two 
principal  ante-Mosaic  documents,  an  Elohistic  and  .a  Jehovistic — 
the  Elohistic  document  embracing  also  the  first  two  chapters  of  Ex 
odus.  He  supposed  that  in  some  few  instances  other  documents 
were  also  used.  Ilgen  (f  in  1834)  asserted  that  Genesis  is  composed 
of  seventeen  independent  documents,  which  proceeded  from  three 
different  authors,  a  Jehovist,  and  a  first  and  second  Elohist. 

Von  Lengerke,  in  his  investigations  concerning  the  Pentateuch, 
published  in  1844,  recognizes  as  the  sources  of  the  Pen-  viewsofLen- 
tateuch  :  i.  A  fundamental  document  written  in  the  age  IndS^GnS' 
of  Solomon;  2.  A  later  writing,  that  of  the  supple-  and Noideke. 
menter,  composed  in  the  first  period  of  the  Assyrian  age,  perhaps 
under  Hezekiah ;  3.  The  Deuteronomist,  in  the  time  of  Josiah. 
Henry  Ewald,  the  great  Orientalist,  in  his  History  of  the  Children 
of  Israel  until  the  Time  of  Christ  (1843-1853),  gives  in  full  his 
opinion  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  grants  the  existence  of  writing  in 
Egypt  before  the  time  of  Moses,  but  attributes  to  Moses  only  a  few 
fragments  of  the  Pentateuch,  such  as  the  Decalogue  and  some 
short  legal  decisions,  with  a  few  songs,  but  no  lengthy  laws  and 
series  of  laws.  Knobel,  in  his  work  on  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua, 
published  in  1861,  supposes  that  Moses  taught  his  laws  orally  only, 
and  left  to  his  successors  the  work  of  developing  and  recording 
them.  John  William  Colenso,  Bishop  of  Natal,  published,  in  1862, 
his  estimate  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua.1  In  this  work 
the  author  assails,  principally  from  an  arithmetical  point  of  view, 
the  credibility  of  the  history  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  denies  its 
Mosaic  authorship.  Its  publication  produced  a  great  sensation  in 
England  and  in  the  United  States,  principally  on  account  of  its  au 
thor's  rank  as  bishop  in  the  Church  of  England.  Professor  Green, 
of  Princeton,  wrote  an  able  and  scholarly  reply  to  Colenso.  In 
1873  Colenso  published  his  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
Moabite  Stone,  in  which  he  further  develops  his  opinions.  What 
he  calls  the  Elohistic  narrative,  or  the  original  story  of  the  exodus, 
embracing  about  one  fourth  or  one  fifth  of  Genesis,  about  one  third 
1  Republished  in  New  York  in  1863. 


72  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

of  Exodus,  no  part  of  Leviticus,  about  one  fourth  of  Numbers,  and 
only  six  verses  of  Deuteronomy,  he  thinks  was  written  by  Samuel. 
He  contends  that  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy,  with  the  exception  of 
six  verses,  was  written  by  Jeremiah,  and  that  the  "priestly  legisla 
tion,"  embracing  one  half  of  the  Pentateuch,  was  written  during  the 
Babylonian  captivity  and  later. 

Very  able  vindications  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta 
teuch  have  been  put  forth  by  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,1  Ranke, 
Drechsler,  M.  Baumgarten,  Keil,  and  others. 

Schrader,  in  his  edition  of  De  Wette's  Introduction,  distributes 
the  Pentateuch  among  four  successive  writers:  "  the  annalist,"  who 
composed  his  work  from  written  sources  during  the  first  seven 
years  of  the  reign  of  David;  "the  theocratic  narrator,"  who  wrote 
between  B.  C.  975  and  950;  "the  prophetic  narrator,"  who  com 
bined  and  retouched  these,  6.0.825-800;  and  the  Deuteronomist, 
a  man  inspired  of  God,  who  wrote  the  last  book  of  the  Pentateuch 
not  long  before  the  eighteenth  year  of  King  Josiah,  and  edited  the 
whole  Pentateuch. 

Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  holds  that  the  Pentateuch  bears  marks  of 
having  originated  from  an  elder  Elohist  (who  wrote  in  the  time  of 
Sau4),  a  junior  Elohist  (about  B.  C.  880),  and  a  Jehovist  (in  the  first 
half  of  the  eighth  century  before  Christ).  Besides  these,  there  was 
an  editor  of  the  whole  work.  The  Pentateuch  was  completed  in  the 
time  of  Manasseh,  and  the  book  found  in  the  temple  in  the  time  of 
King  Josiah  (2  Kings  xxii)  was  our  Pentateuch.  Dr.  Davidson  be 
lieves  that  whole  chapters  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers  were 
written  by  Moses.  The  theory  of  Dr.  Davidson  is  substantially  the 
same  as  that  of  Hupfeld. 

Frederick  Bleek,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,8  holds 
that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  is  not  the  work  of  Moses, 

although  it  contains  a  considerable  number  of  chapters 
Bleek's  theory. 

written  by  him ;  but  that  it  is  based  upon  an  Elohistic 

history  which  extended  from  the  creation  to  the  conquest  of  Ca 
naan,  written  probably  in  the  reign  of  Saul.  The  writer  used  the 
term  Elohim  exclusively  until  the  time  that  God  revealed  himself 
to  Moses  as  Jehovah  (Exod.  vi,  3),  after  which  he  employed  the 
term  Jehovah.  Documents,  some  of  which  were  written  during  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  were  used  in  the  composition  of  the  work.  The 
author  of  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  nearly  in  their 
present  form,  a  Jehovist  of  the  first  part  of  the  reign  of  David, 
made  the  Elohistic  history  the  basis  of  his  own  work.  He  did  not 

1  The  Pentateuch  Vindicated,  etc.,  New  York,  1863. 
9  Edited  by  Kamphausen,  Berlin,  1870. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  73 

always  follow  it,  however,  but  incorporated  into  it  new  matter, 
partly  from  written  sources  and  partly  from  tradition.  This  recen 
sion  included  only  a  few  verses  of  Deuteronomy,  which  arose  in  the 
time  of  Manasseh,  so  that  it  formed  apart  of  the  Pentateuch  found 
in  the  temple  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  The  author  of  Deuteronomy 
was  also  the  editor  of  the  whole  Pentateuch. 

Fiirst1  believes  the  Pentateuch  to  be  composed  of  various  docu 
ments,  some  of  which  were  ante-Mosaic,  but  that  the  most  were 

composed  in  the  Mosaic  age,  in  great  part  by  the  lavv- 

,-  .   .  f     ,  Fiirst's  theory, 

giver  himself;  and  that  the  last  revision   of  the  whole 

Pentateuch  and  Joshua  was  made  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  the 
Judges.  Two  writers  figure  in  Fiirst's  scheme  :  the  "  narrator  "  and 
the  "  supplementer."  He  attaches  but  little  importance  to  the  use 
of  the  divine  names  in  different  portions  of  Genesis. 

In  1866,  Prof.  K.  H.  Graf,  of  Meissen,  in  his  discussion  of  The 
Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  put  forth  the  views  of  the 
hypothesis  that  the  Pentateuch  and  the  earlier  proph-  JJJd^JJl 
ets  (Genesis-2  Kings),  form  one  book.  He  supposes  2  Pentateuch, 
that  a  writer,  the  Jehovist,  about  B.  C.  750,  revised  an  older  his 
torical  work  (the  Elohist),  which  had  been  composed  partly  from 
oral  and  partly  from  written  sources.  This  revised  work  of  the 
Jehovist  was  an  historical  work  rather  than  a  law  book.  It  con 
tained  the  most  of  Genesis,  but  lacked  Exodus  xii,  1-28,  43-51  ; 
xxv-xxxi;  xxxv-xl,  the  whole  of  Leviticus,  about  one  half  of 
Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy  i-xxx.s  Toward  B.  C.  600,  this  work 
was  revised  and  continued  by  the  Deuteronomist.  About  B.  C.  450 
the  Pentateuch  received  its  present  form  by  the  introduction  of 
the  laws  collected  and  arranged  by  Ezra ;  or,  rather,  it  received  its 
complete  form  immediately  after  Ezra.4  He  thinks  that  Ezekiel 
wrote  Leviticus  xviii-xxiii,  xxv,  xxvi.  He  thus  divides  the  Elohis- 
tic  document  (Grundschrift)  of  the  Pentateuch.  After  his  atten 
tion  had  been  called  to  the  inconsistency  of  this  proceeding,  he 
reconsidered  the  matter,  and  adopted  the  view  that  "  The  Elohistic 
parts  of  Genesis  are  later  than  the  Jehovistic  parts."  5 

Prof.  Kayser,  of  Strassburg,  in  his  Prae-Exilic  Book  of  the  Primi 
tive  History  of  Israel  and  its  Enlargements,  finds,  as  the  result  of 
his  investigations,  that  there  was  a  Pentateuchal  document,  the 
Jehovist,  written  before  the  time  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Micah,  who 
refer  to  it,  but  know  nothing  of  the  Elohist.  Nor  does  the  Deut 
eronomist,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  King  Manasseh  or  Josiah, 
know  any  thing  of  the  Elohist ;  he  is  acquainted  with  the  Jehovist 

1  See  hli  Geschichte  der  Biblischen  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1867.  9  Pp.  in,  112. 

*Ibid.,  p.  94.  4Ibid.,  p.  75.  6  Wellhausen's  Bleek,  p.  161. 


74  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

only.  "The  Deuteronomist,"  he  says,  ';  was  also  acquainted  with 
the  Jehovistic  law,  Exodus  xx-xxiii,  xxxiv.  The  Elohim  book 
arose  in  the  time  of  Ezra."  l  The  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  books 
were  united  after  the  exile.2 

Prof.  J.  Wellhausen,  in  his  additions  to  Bleek's  Einleitung,3  gives 
his  views  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  refers  to 
previous  discussions,  in  which  he  sets  forth  his  views  more  at  large. 
His  first  document  is  the  Jehovistic  Book  of  History  (J  E),  formed 
from  two  sources,  one  of  which  (J)  used  the  name  Jehovah,  the 
other  (E)  Elohim.  This  book  contained  only  very  short  laws 
(Exodus  xx-xxiii).  To  it  was  afterward  united  Deuteronomy, 
which  was  originally  only  a  law  book.  At  the  same  time  the 
whole  Hexateuch  (which  altogether  lacked  Leviticus)  was  revised 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Deuteronomist,  least  in  Genesis,  more 
in  Exodus  and  Numbers,  and  most  in  Joshua.  Beside  this  com 
bination  there  stands  independently  also  another  historical  and 
legal  work,  the  Codex  of  the  Priests.  Its  foundation — which  ap 
pears  almost  pure  in  Genesis,  but  elsewhere  is  enlarged  in  the 
most  comprehensive  manner  through  the  labour  of  a  whole  school 
— is  the  book  of  the  four  covenants  (Q),  a  work  which  presents  the 
laws  in  a  strictly  historical  framework.  The  last  editor  of  the 
Hexateuch  (R)  combined  the  previous  work  with  the  Codex  of  the 
Priests.  This  Codex  is  later  than  Deuteronomy.4  Wellhausen 
manifestly  considers  it  largely  the  work  of  Ezra. 

Abram  Kuenen,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Leyden,  has,  in  different  treatises,  set  forth  his  views  of  the  Penta 
teuch.  The  work  of  Bishop  Colenso,  according  to  his  confession, 
seems  to  have  influenced  him.  He  observed  that  those  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  in  which  Colenso  found  the  greatest  difficulties  had 
been  considered  the  oldest  portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  "grad 
ually  reached  the  conviction  that  our  criticism  of  the  fundamental 
document  (Grundschrift  of  the  Pentateuch)  has  stopped  half  way."  : 

In  i869~i8'7o,  Kuenen  published  in  Dutch  his  Religion  of  Israel.6 
His  standpoint  is  naturalistic.  "  For  us,"  says  he,  "the  Israelitish 
is  one  of  those  [principal]  religions,  nothing  more,  but  also  noth 
ing  less."  "  Even  though  it  be  admitted  that  God  may  now  and 
then  have  suspended  natural  laws,  no  one  has  a  right  to  assume  for 
that  reason  that  this  really  took  place  among  the  Israelites." f 

^trassburg,  1874,  p.  196.  9  Ibid.,  p.  143.  3  Berlin,  1878. 

4  Wellhausen's  Bleek,  pp.  177,  178.  5  Ibid.,  p.  155. 

6  Translated  into  English  by  Alfred  Heath  May,  and  published  in  London  and 
Edinburgh,  in  3  vols.,  1874-1875.     Republished  without  change  in  1882-1883. 
'Vol.  i,  p.  5.  8Ibid.,  p.  21. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  75 

Kuenen,  with  all  his  skepticism,  admits  some  facts  in  the  Penta- 
teuchal  history.  "  We  may  not  doubt,"  says  he,  "  that  the  Exodus  is 
an  historical  fact.  Independently  of  the  authority  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  book  of  Joshua,  it  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the 
prophets."1  He  grants  that  Moses  was  the  leader  of  the  Israelites 
in  Egypt  and  subsequently,  and  that  he  established  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  in  Israel. 

Respecting  the  ten  commandments,  Kuenen  remarks:  "  There  is 
no  real  obstacle  to  the  supposition  that  they  are  derived  from 
Moses  :  on  the  contrary,  their  contents  and  arrangement  are  entirely 
in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  their  Mosaic  origin." a  "  The  tradi 
tion  which  ascribes  them  to  Moses  is  worthy  of  respect  on  account  of 
its  undisputed  antiquity."  "  We  acknowledge  as  a  fact  that  Moses 
in  the  name  of  Jahveh  prescribed  to  the  Israelitish  tribes  such  a  law 
as  is  contained  in  the  ten  words."8  "We  are  led,"  says  he,  "to 
place  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  Mosaic  time."  4  He  also 
remarks :  "  From  the  Mosaic  time  downward  there  always  existed 
in  Israel  a  Worship  of  Jahveh  without  an  image.  Scarcely  any  tra 
dition  of  Hebrew  antiquity  is  better  guaranteed  than  that  which 
derives  the  ark  of  Jahveh  from  the  lawgiver  himself."5  In  Kuenen's 
view,  "  Moses  bequeathed  no  book  of  the  law  to  the  tribe  of 
Israel."  '  "  It  is  quite  certain  that  nearly  all  the  laws  of  the  Penta 
teuch  date  from  much  later  times."7  "  In  the  eighth  century  B.  C. 
but  few  laws — and  those,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,  not  even  uni 
versally  or  in  the  same  sense — were  ascribed  to  Moses,  and  carried 
back  to  the  sojourn  in  the  desert  of  Sinai."  '  "  I  have  been  led  to 
the  conviction  that  the  priestly  legislation  in  Exodus  and  Numbers 
was  not  brought  to  its  present  form  until  after  the  exile,  and  there 
fore  in  its  entirety  is  younger  than  Deuteronomy.  .  .  .  The  decrees 
of  the  priestly  laws  were  not  made  and  invented  during  or  after  the 
exile,  but  drawn  up.  Prior  to  the  exile  the  priests  had  already  de 
livered  verbally  what,  with  the  modifications  that  had  become  neces 
sary  in  the  meantime,  they  afterward  committed  to  writing."9 
After  the  ten  commandments,  Kuenen  seems  to  consider  Exodus 
xxi-xxiii,  which  he  calls  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  as  standing  next 
in  point  of  antiquity. 

Kuenen  divides  the  priestly  laws  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Penta 
teuch  into  three  groups.  The  first  embraces  Leviticus  xviii-xxiii, 
xxv,  xxvi.  To  the  second  group  belong  in  great  part  the  laws  in 
Exodus  xii,  xxv-xxxi,  in  Leviticus  i-xvii,  xxiv,  xxvii,  and  most  of 

1  Vol.  i,  p.  117.  'Ibid.,  p.  284.  8Ibid.,  p.  285. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  286.  5  Ibid.,  p.  289.  6  Vol.  ii,  p.  7. 

'Vol.  i,  p.  272.  8Ibid.,  p.  139.  *Vol.  ii,  p.  96. 


76  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  priestly  documents  in  Numbers,  both  the  purely  legislative  and 
the  semi-historical.  His  third  group  is  "  usually  closely  united  with 
the  older  documents  in  three  central  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
cannot  be  separated  from  them  without  difficulty."1  "The  laws," 
says  he,  "  of  the  first  and  second  groups,  and  the  historical  narra 
tives  belonging  to  them,  were  written  in  Babylonia  between  the 
years  538  and  458  B.  C."2  The  author  of  the  first  group  of 
priestly  laws  wrote  also  the  book  of  Elohistic  History,  the  Book  of 
Origins.  Genesis  i,  i-ii,  3,  was,  accordingly,  written  about  the  time 
of  Ezra!  It  is  clear  that  Kuenen  considered  the  author  of  the 
Elohistic  narrative  the  inventor  of  the  historical  incidents.  Deut 
eronomy,  he  holds,  is  a  forgery  of  the  seventh  century  before 
Christ.3 

Prof.  Smend,  of  Basel,  asserts  that  the  priestly  laws  of  the  Penta 
teuch  were  unknown  to  Ezekiel,  and,  therefore,  had  no  existence 
at  the  time.4  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  in  lectures  on  The  Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,6  puts  into  a  popular  form  the 
views  of  Graf,  Wellhausen,  and  Kuenen  on  the  Pentateuch.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  he  widely  differs  from  the  naturalistic  views  of 
these  men  in  admitting  a  divine  revelation  as  the  basis  of  the  Mo 
saic  system.  In  short,  he  endeavours  to  breathe  into  the  deathly 
results  of  a  rationalistic  criticism  the  living  spirit  of  divine  reve 
lation.  After  the  ten  commandments,  Prof.  Smith  recognizes  as 
most  ancient  Exod.  xxi-xxiii,  which  he  calls  "  the  first  legislation."' 
But  he  does  not  seem  to  think  that  these  laws  were  written  by 
Moses,  for  he  says  :  "  Till  we  come  to  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  we 
find  no  statement  that  Moses  wrote  down  more  than  the  ten  com 
mandments."7  He  contends  that  "Deuteronomy  was  unknown 
until  long  after  the  days  of  Moses."  "It  was  not  known  to 
Isaiah.'"  But  he  does  not  believe  in  "the  idea  of  some  critics, 
that  the  Deuteronomic  Code  was  a  forgery  of  the  temple  priests,  or 
of  their  head,  the  high  priest  Hilkiah."8  "It  was  of  no  conse 
quence  to  Josiah — it  is  of  equally  little  consequence  to  us— to  know 
the  exact  date  and  authorship  of  the  book.  Its  prophetic  doctrine 
and  the  practical  character  of  the  scheme  which  it  set  forth — in 
which  the  new  teaching  and  the  old  Torah  were  fused  into  an  in 
telligible  unity — were  enough  to  commend  it."10  He  regards  "  the 
Levitical  law  as  later  than  Ezekiel."11  "The  development  of  the 
details  of  the  [Levitical]  system  falls,  therefore,  between  the  time 
of  Ezekiel  and  the  work  of  Ezra." 12  "  It  is  for  the  historian  to 

1  Vol.  ii,  p.  150.  2  Ibid.,  p.  152.  8  Ibid.,  p.  19.  4  Com.  on  Ezekiel. 

6  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  New  York,  1883.         6  Ibid.,  p.  316.  7  Ibid.,  p.  331. 

8 Ibid.,  p.  354.     »Ibid.,  p.  362.     10  Ibid.,  ^363.     »  Ibid.,  p.  375.     12  Ibid.,  p.  384. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  77 

determine  how  far  the  Levitical  law  is  mere  law,  of  which  we  can 
say  no  more  than  that  it  was  law  for  the  Second  Temple,  and  how 
far  it  is  also  history  which  can  be  used  in  describing  the  original 
sanctuary  of  the  ark  in  the  days  of  Moses."  ' 

The  new  theory  has  been  decidedly  opposed  by  Noldeke,  who 
in  his  work  published  in  1868  thinks  that  the  laws  in  Opponents  of 
Leviticus  and  the  chapter  on  the  tabernacle  were  written  the  theory  or 
in  the  ninth  or  tenth  century  before  Christ ;  and  that 
the  principal  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  belongs  to  the  earlier  kings. 
Riehm,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1868  and  1872,  strongly  op 
poses  the  new  theory.  Prof.  Curtiss  in  his  valuable  work  on  The 
Levitical  Priests8  tests  the  new  theory,  and  finds  it  wanting  respect 
ing  the  priesthood.  Klostermann,  in  Delitzsch's  Journal  of  Lutheran 
Theology,  1877,  refutes  the  theory  that  Ezekiel  wrote  Leviticus 
xviii-xxvi.  Prof.  August  Dillmann,  of  the  University  of  Berlin,  in 
his  Commentary  on  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  takes  strong  ground 
against  the  new  theory,  and  remarks:  "That  the  priests  of  the 
central  sanctuary  in  ancient  time  wrote  their  laws  is  the  most  rea 
sonable  supposition  in  the  world.  .  .  .  That  the  laws  relating  to  the 
priesthood  and  divine  service  were  not  written  down,  or  even  made, 
until  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  is  absurd  (Widersinnig)."  :  It  is 
also  opposed  by  Bredenkamp,4  of  Erlangen.  Prof.  Watts,  of  Belfast, 
in  his  New  Criticism,5  has  replied  to  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith. 
Dr.  Stebbins,  in  A  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,  reviews  and  decid 
edly  condemns  Kuenen's  views  in  his  Religion  of  Israel.6 

Prof.  W.  H.  Green,  of  the  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  pub 
lished  in  the  Presbyterian  Quarterly  Review  a  masterly  refutation 
of  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  which  he  enlarged  and  republished 
in  book  form,  with  other  kindred  articles.7  Prof.  Delitzsch  has 
written  against  the  new  theory,  but  makes  so  many  concessions  to  it 
that  he  rather  seems  to  favor  it.8  "  He  admits  that  *  the  Mosaic 
legislation  had  its  history,  and  that  the  codification  of  its  parts  was 
executed  successively  ' — yea,  that  the  process  extended  over  a 
thousand  years."9 

1  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  384. 

5  Edinburg,  1877.         3Vorwort,  Leipzig,  1880. 

4Gesetz  und  Propheten,  1881.         6  Second  ed.,  1882.         6  Boston,  1881. 

1  New  York,  1883. 

8  His  views  are  given  by  Joseph  Cook  in  the  N.  Y.  Independent,  Sept.  15,  1881. 

'Prof.  F.  A.  Cast,  D.D.,  in  the  Reformed  Quarterly  Review  for  July,  1882. 
This  article  and  the  one  in  the  previous  number  of  the  Review  by  the  same  author 
are  very  valuable,  and  give  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  theories  respecting  the 
Pentateuch. 


78  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  VII. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  DOCUMENT  HYPOTHESIS. 

TT  is  thus  seen  that  the  impugners  of  the  Pentateuch  regard  it  not 
^  as  the  work  of  Moses,  but  as  a  patchwork,  a  mosaic,  of  various 
documents,  written  at  different  periods  by  various  authors.  Re 
specting  the  document  hypothesis,  we  may  remark,  first  of  all, 
that  there  is  very  little  agreement,  as  we  have  already  seen,  among 
the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  in  regard  to  the 
number  of  the  original  documents,  when  they  were  composed,  by 
whom  and  from  what  sources,  and  when  the  final  revision  of  the 
whole  was  made.  This  want  of  unity  in  view  is  a  strong  proof  that 
their  theories  rest  upon  no  solid  basis  of  facts.  One  feature,  how 
ever,  stands  out  prominently  in  nearly  all  their  theories :  they  de 
prive  Moses,  as  much  as  possible,  of  all  connexion  with  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 

That  part  of  the  Pentateuch  which  the  critical  school,  prior  to 
Graf,  with  great  unanimity,  called  the  fundamental  document  (Grund- 
schrift) — consisting  of  the  Elohistic  history  in  Genesis,  and  a  large 
part  of  the  history  and  most  of  the  laws  in  the  middle  books — is 
now  pronounced  by  Graf  and  his  school  to  be  the  latest  of  all.  In 
short,  what  former  critics  considered  the  foundation  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  edifice  the  new  school  declares  to  be  the  top.  The  new 
school,  therefore,  throws  every  thing  into  confusion.  It  affirms 
that,  prior  to  Ezra,  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  the  first  three 
verses  of  the  second  had  no  existence,  and  that  the  history  of 
creation  began  with  Gen.  ii,  4.  In  this  way,  there  is  not  a  single 
hint  in  Genesis  that  God  created  every  thing  in  six  days,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  this  is  affirmed  in  the  fourth  commandment,  Exodus 
xx,  8-1  T,  and  that  the  Sabbath  was  ordained  to  commemorate  the 
divine  rest  after  the  six  days'  work  of  creation.  If  one  can  believe 
that  no  Jewish  historian  until  Ezra,  a  thousand  years  after  Moses, 
would  write  an  account  of  the  six  days'  work  of  creation,  and  that 
previous  to  that  time  the  account  of  creation  begun  in  the  following 
manner:  "  And  every  plant  of  the  field  before  it  was  in  the  earth/' 
etc.,  we  do  not  envy  him  his  judgment.  Jeremiah  quotes  Gen.  i,  2  : 
*'  I  beheld  the  earth,  and,  lo,  it  was  without  form,  and  void  "  (iv,  23). 
The  Hebrew  is  exactly  that  of  Genesis  (inhl  vin).  So  also  in  Deut- 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  79 

eronomy  and   the   earlier   prophets,  there    are   references   to    the 
Elohistic  history  in  Genesis,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  different  names  for  the  Divine  Being — Elohim,  God,  Jehovah 
(properly  Jahveti),  and  Jehovah  Elohim  (LORD  God,  Eng.  Ver.)— 
found  in  different  portions  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  furnish  the  original 
ground  for  the  decomposition  of  the  Mosaic  writings.  In  the  other 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  (with  the  exception  of  the  first  few  chapters 
of  Exodus)  the  use  of  the  divine  names  furnishes  no 
support  at  all  for  the  document  hypothesis.  But  it  against  the 

must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  hypothesis  that  one  doc-   d°cumentby- 

J  r  pothesis. 

ument,  or  more,  entered  into  the  composition  of  the  Book 

of  Genesis  and  into  the  first  two  chapters  of  Exodus,  by  no  means 
militates  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  That  the 
traditions  of  the  Hebrew  people  would  be  written  down  during  their 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  where  they  came  in  contact  with  a  people  who 
were  accustomed  to  write  the  annals  of  their  kings,  and  to  compose 
works  on  science  and  religion,  is  highly  probable.  Joseph,  who  mar 
ried  the  daughter  of  Poti-pherah,  priest  of  On,  might  have  compiled 
the  annals  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  traditions  respecting  the  deluge 
and  the  antediluvian  world.  But  those  annals  might  have  been  very 
defective,  and  have  contained  no  account,  or  a  very  imperfect  one,  of 
the  work  of  creation,  the  order  of  which  none  but  God  could  know. 
The  original  document  lying  before  Moses — for  we  cart  scarce 
ly  believe  it  at  all  probable  that  the  Hebrews  had  two  different 
documents  which  related  the  history  of  the  world  from  the  creation 
to  the  time  of  Moses — may  have  been  used  by  him  in  the  composi 
tion  of  Genesis.  In  this  way  we  might  find  in  Genesis  a  narrator 
(the  Elohisf),  and  an  editor  or  reviser,  the  Jehovist  (Moses).  How 
far  this  is  probably  true  must  be  determined  from  the  phenomena 
exhibited  in  the  book. 

In  the  account  of  creation,  ending  with  the  third  verse  of  the 
second  chapter  of  Genesis,  the  Creator  is  called  Elohim  (God). 
After  this  we  have  an  enlarged  account  of  the  creation  of  the  first 
pair  of  the  human  race,  the  condition  of  the  earth,  the  planting  of 
Eden,  the  fall  of  man  and  his  expulsion  from  Paradise,  ending  with 
the  fouith  chapter.  In  this  historical  sketch  (with  the  exception  of 
the  address  of  the  serpent  to  Eve,  and  her  reply,  where  Elohim  (God) 
is  used)  the  name  of  the  divine  Being  is  Jehovah  Elohim  (Lord 
God,  Eng.  Ver.).  Such  phraseology  is  found  nowhere  else,  either  in 
Genesis  or  in  any  other  book  of  the  Bible.1  At  the  end  of  the  first 
account  of  creation,  and  immediately  preceding  the  more  special 

1  Everywhere  else,  if  Jehovah  God  is  used,  it  is  in  such  form  as  this :  Jehovah, 
God  of  heaven. 


80  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

narrative  of  a  part  of  the  divine  work,  we  have  the  statements 
"These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth  when 
they  were  created,  in  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made  the  earth 
Jehovah  and  anc^  tne  heavens"  (Gen.  ii,  4).  Now  the  question  arises, 

Eiohtm  cou-  whether  this  verse  belongs  to  the  first  narrative  of  crea- 
sidered 

tion  or  to  the  description  that  follows.     To  refer  it  to 

the  latter  would  be  unsuitable,  form  this  there  is  no  consecutive  ac 
count  of  creation,  no  mention  at  all  of  the  making  of  the  heavens 
and  of  the  earth.  There  appears,  therefore,  a  good  reason  for  re 
ferring  it  to  the  preceding  account,  to  which  it  is  altogether  applica 
ble.  But  why  was  this  verse  (ii,  4)  not  placed  at  the  very  beginning 
of  Genesis  ?  For  a  very  good  reason ;  since  in  that  case  it  would 
take  away  the  sublimity  and  prominence  of  the  declaration:  "In 
the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  How  com- 
paratively  feeble,  and  almost  awkward,  would  be  such  an  arrangement 
as  this  :  "  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth, 
when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that  Jehovah  God  made  the  heav 
ens  and  the  earth.  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth."  Ftirst  refers  verse  ii,  4,  to  the  preceding  account  of  crea 
tion.1  Further,  the  "  and  "  (i)  that  follows  the  verse  forbids  the  refer 
ence  to  what  follows :  "And  every  plant  of  the  field,"  etc.,  ver.  5. 

The  next  question  is:  Why  does  the  narrator  use,  in  the  second 
description,  the  combined  names  Jehovah  Elohim  ?  Evidently  to 
show  that  Elohim,  the  general  name  for  the  divine  Being,  is  the  same 
Jehovah2  who  manifested  himself  to  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  and  who 
was  in  a  special  sense  their  God.  We  have  already  observed  that 
this  form  of  blending  the  two  names  occurs  nowhere  else  ;  but  very 
frequently  we  find  both  names  used  in  passages  which  obviously  were 
written  by  one  author.  Take  as  an  example  the  Eighteenth  Psalm 
of  David,  in  which  several  divine  names — Elohim,  Eloah,  El 
(God),  and  Jehovah  (Lord) — occur  without  our  being  able  to  deter 
mine  in  most  instances  why  one  name  should  be  preferred  to  the 
other.  In  some  cases  there  is  a  special  fitness  in  using  one  in  pref 
erence  to  another;  while  in  others  no  good  reason  can  be  assigned 
for  discriminating  between  them.  We  ourselves  often  use  them  pro 
miscuously. 

^eschichte  der  Bib.  Liter.,  vol.  i,  p.  69,  note.  I  refer  to  Furst  especially  on  ac 
count  of  his  great  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  from  the  fact  that  he  is  a 
Rationalist,  and  treats  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  with  great  freedom,  and  cannot  be 
supposed  to  be  biased  in  favour  of  any  thing  that  may  be  considered  orthodox. 

8  The  name  rTl{T\  Jehovah,  should  be  written  with  different  vowels,  and  pro 
nounced  Jahvch,  the  future  of  the  verb  {"PH,  (Havah\  to  be,  the  Being  who  wii>  ,**•, 
who  will  always  exist,  the  Absolute  Bein?.  The  Hebrews  use  the  future  tense  to 
indicate  what  is  customary,  permanent.  J)»»  ?"i^'  tJ^bj*,  (God),  are  terms  indic 
ative  of  might,  power. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

In  the  very  midst  of  the  narrative  of  the  creation  and  fall  of  man, 
in  which  Jehovah  Elohim  (Lord  God)  is  used,  we  find  both  the 
serpent  and  the  woman  using  Elohim.  It  would  be  unsuitable  to 
put  the  word  Jehovah  into  the  mouth  of  the  serpent,  and  Elohim  is 
taken  up  from  the  serpent  by  Eve.  This  narrative  most  properly 
belongs  to  Moses,  the  theologian  and  lawgiver,  and  stands  most 
intimately  connected  with  his  whole  system.  Nor  do  we  think  that 
any  historian  of  the  creation,  subsequently  to  the  time  in  which 
God  revealed  himself  to  Moses  as  Jehovah,  would  have  omitted  the 
use  of  the  latter  august  name.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  strange  in 
supposing  that  Moses  should  first  give  us  a  general  con-  Probability  of 
secutive  history  of  creation,  and  then  a  more  particular  theS^Y0rdSJe- 
description  of  the  important  parts  of  it,  especially  when  novah. 
the  more  particular  account  was  so  closely  connected  with  the  his 
tory  that  was  to  follow. 

In  the  fourth  chapter  Jehovah  (Lord)  is  everywhere  used,  ex 
cept  in  the  twenty-fifth  verse,  where  Eve  says,  on  the  birth  of  Seth, 
"  God  hath  appointed  me  another  seed  instead  of  Abel,  whom  Cain 
slew."  When  Abel  was  born  she  said  :  "  I  have  gotten  a  man 
[through  the  aid  of]  Jehovah."  We  cannot  assert,  with  any  degree 
of  probability,  why  she  used  the  one  term  for  the  divine  Being  in 
stead  of  the  other.  In  the  fifth  chapter  Elohim  (God)  is  used, 
with  but  one  exception,  where  Jehovah  occurs  ;  and  in  the  sixth 
chapter  Elohim  occurs  eight  times  and  Jehovah  four  times.  In 
verses  five,  six,  and  seven,  Elohim  and  Jehovah  stand  in  the  closest 
connexion. 

The  statement  in  chap,  vi,  2,  "  that  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daugh 
ters  of  men  that  they  were  fair,  and  they  took  them  wives  of  all  which 
they  chose,"  has  no  reference,  as  some  have  imagined,  and  even 
Gesenius  among  the  number,  to  the  intercourse  of  angels  with  women. 
Such  an  idea  would  have  been  abhorrent  to  all  the  religious  views 
of  the  Old  Testament  writers,  and  would  require  the  clearest  Ian- 
guage  to  establish  it.  Nor  is  the  phrase  D'riSxn  "33,  sons  of  God,  ever 
used  in  the  Pentateuch  for  angels.  It  occurs  a  few  times,  prob 
ably  in  this  sense,  in  the  poetic  book  of  Job  (i,  6 ;  ii,  i ;  xxxviii,  7),' 
and  in  a  very  similar  form  and  in  a  similar  sense  in  Psalm 
Ixxxix,  6.  The  passages  in  Job  are  referred  to  the  angels  by  the 
LXX.  On  the  contrary,  in  Genesis  xxviii,  12,  where  Jacob  beheld  in 
a  dream  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending  upon  the  lad 
der  extending  from  earth  to  heaven,  they  are  called  by  a  different 
expression,  D'rl^x  ox1?^,  messengers  of  God?  But  the  phrase  "sons, 

1  In  this  passage  the  article  is  omitted  before  Elohim. 
*  Also  in  Gen.  xxxii,  i:  "  The  angels  of  God  met  him." 

VOL.  I.— 6 


82  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

of  God"  in  Genesis  vi,  2,  must  refer  to  the  holy  people  of  God  upon 
the  earth.  The  Targums  of  Onkelos,  Midrash,  and  Symmachus, 
whom  Fiirst  follows,  have  sons  of  princes,  or  companions  of  distin 
guished  ones.  The  LXX  adheres  closely  to  the  Hebrew — "  sons  of 
God."  In  Exodus  iv,  22,  God  calls  Israel  his  son  ;  and  in  Hosea 
i,  10,  it  is  said,  "Ye  are  the  sons  of  the  living  God." 

In  the  next  two  chapters  (vii,  viii),  in  which  we  have  a  descrip 
tion  of  the  deluge,  its  subsidence,  Noah's  leaving  the  ark,  and  his 
sacrifice  to  Jehovah,  both  Elohim  and  Jehovah  are  employed.  In 
some  sections  of  the  description  of  the  deluge  only  one  of  the  divine 
names  is  found;  in  ethers,  both  occur  :  in  one  short  section  Elohim 
alone  occurs,  and  but  once ;  while  both  names  are  found  in  the  six 
teenth  verse  of  chapter  vii. 

There  are,  it  is  true,  some  apparent  indications  of  two  separate 
A  rent  in-  accounts  of  tne  deluge,  not  in  the  use  of  the  divine 
dications  of  names  merely,  but  also  in  the  matter  of  the  narrative 
two  accounts.  itsdf .  for  we  find  ^^  when  ElMm  (God)  commanded 

Noah  to  build  the  ark,  he  ordered  him  to  take  into  it  two  living 
things  of  each  kind,  the  male  and  the  female ;  but  after  the  ark  is 
built,  Jehovah  commands  Noah  to  take  living  things  into  the  ark, 
the  unclean  by  twos,  the  male  and  his  female,  and  the  clean  by 
sevens,  the  male  and  his  female.  And  it  is  said  of  clean  beasts,  and  of 
beasts  that  are  not  clean,  and  of  fowls,  and  of  every  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth,  there  went  in  two  and  two  unto  Noah  into  the  ark, 
the  male  and  the  female,  as  God  had  commanded  Noah  (verses  8,  9). 
Again,  after  enumerating  different  kinds  of  living  beings,  without 
discriminating  between  clean  and  unclean,  it  is  added  :  "And  they 
went  in  unto  Noah  into  the  ark,  two  and  two  of  all  flesh,  wherein  is  the 
breath  of  life.  And  they  that  went  in,  went  in  male  and  female  of 
all  flesh,  as  God  had  commanded  him  ;  and  Jehovah  shut  him  in  " 
(vii,  15,  16).  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  author  of  the  Etohistic 
portion  knew  nothing  of  the  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean 
— though  that  has  been  asserted — for  this  distinction  is  recognised 
in  the  Elohistic  portion  (vii,  7-9).  Respecting  the  apparent  dis 
crepancy  between  the  number  of  living  things  (by  twos)  that  were 
ordered  to  be  taken  into  the  ark  when  the  command  was  given  to 
build  it,  and  the  larger  number  of  clean  animals  (by  sevens)  that 
were  directed  to  be  taken  into  the  ark  after  it  was  completed,  it 
may  be  observed  that  the  first  command  was  in  general  terms,  but 
when  the  ark  was  completed  the  numbers  were  more  specifically 
stated.  And  when  it  is  said  that  the  living  things  went  into  the  ark 
two  and  two,  even  in  the  section  which  closes  with  the  name  of  Je 
hovah,  it  is  difficult  to  -think  that  there  can  be  a  real  contradiction  ; 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  83 

rather,  the  expression  "  two  and  two  "  indicates  that  they  came  in 
pairs,  without  fixing  the  number  of  pairs  of  each  kind,  or  discrimi 
nating  between  the  clean  and  the  unclean. 

There  is  considerable  repetition  in  the  account  of  the  deluge,  and, 
indeed,  in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  not  strange  in  a 
work  of  so  great  antiquity.  In  fact,  repetition  is  characteristic  of 
the  poetry  of  the  Hebrews,  as  well  as  of  that  of  the  ancient  Egyp 
tians,  whose  poetry  would  naturally  affect  a  prose  writer  like  Moses, 
skilled  in  their  learning.  Respecting  the  Egyptians,  Wuttke  re 
marks  :  "  In  poetical  productions  they  loved  the  repetition  of  the 
same  thought  in  a  different  form,  either  to  make  it  clearer  or  to  give 
it  more  emphasis."  l 

In  the  subsequent  parts  of  Genesis,  Elohim  is  used  in  some 
sections,  Jehovah  in  others,  while  in  some  instances  the  two  names 
are  inseparably  connected.  Some  sections  contain  no  divine  name. 
In  the  last  chapters  of  Genesis,  Elohim  is  almost  universally  used. 
It  was  extremely  natural,  indeed,  that  Joseph,  in  his  intercourse 
with  the  Egyptians,  should  use  Elohim,  as  they  knew  not  Jehovah. 
In  some  cases  it  is  possible  to  assign  a  reason  for  the  preference  of 
one  divine  name  to  the  other;  but  in  other  cases  it  is  impossible. 

In  the  first  two  chapters  of  Exodus  Elohim  alone  is  used.  In  the 
following  chapter  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  appears  unto  Moses  in  a 
burning  bush,  proclaims  himself  as  "  I  AM  THAT  I  AM,"  and  commis 
sions  him  to  bring  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt.  Here,  and  in  the 
subsequent  chapters,  the  use  of  Elohim  and  Jehovah  are  so  inter 
woven  in  the  narrative  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  separate 
them  and  assign  them  to  different  documents  ;  and  in  the  sixth 
chapter  the  Almighty  reveals  himself  to  Moses  as  JEHOVAH. 

It  would  seem  that  the  sacred  historian,  in  the  last  chapters  of 
Genesis  and  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Exodus,  purposely  kept  the 
name  Jehovah  in  the  background,  that  he  might  bring  it  forward 
with  more  power  and  splendour  in  the  divine  manifestations  to 
Moses  and  the  other  Israelites,  in  the  merciful  and  powerful  deliver 
ance  of  the  chosen  people  from  Egyptian  bondage,  and  in  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  sacred  covenant  with  them. 

When  God  revealed  himself  to  Moses  as  JEHOVAH  he  said, 
"  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  ^.g  reveia- 


as  El  Shadday  (God  Almighty),  but  by  my  name  JE-  tionofwmseif 

_  _  -  jj    /  i         •         \  T        •        ®"^  tJCDOY9.ll* 

HOVAH  was  I  not  known  to  them  (Exod.  vi,  3).  It  is 
not  to  be  supposed  from  this  declaration  that  the  name  was  ab 
solutely  unknown,  but  that  its  full  import  in  redeeming  power  and 
mercy  had  not  been  known  to  the  patriarchs,  but  was  now  about  to 
be  revealed  gloriously  in  the  redemption  of  Israel  and  in  the  es- 
1  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  p.  571. 


84  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

tablishment  of  a  new  covenant.  The  Abrahamic  covenant  was  the 
revelation  of  El  Shadday,  not  the  fulness  of  divine  mercy  and  good 
ness  as  exhibited  in  the  import  of  the  name  Jehovah.1  To  the  He 
brews  names  were  of  the  deepest  significance,  and  were  sometimes 
employed  to  express  all  that  existed  in  the  object  to  which  they  are 
applied ;  especially  is  this  the  case  with  the  Divine  Names.  Thus 
we  find  the  Almighty  declaring  to  the  Israelites  that  he  will  send 
his  Angel  before  them.  "  He  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions, 
for  my  name  is  in  him, "that  is,  my  Godhead,  Deity  (and  so  Gesenius), 
Exod.  xxiii,  21.  In  Psalm  liv,  r,  we  have  the  following  :  "  Save  me,  O 
God,  by  thy  name"  that  is,  by  the  power  and  goodness  that  pertain  to 
thy  name.  And  we  have  a  similar  analogy  in  the  New  Testament 
(i  Cor.  i,  21),  where  St.  Paul  says,  "The  world  by  wisdom  knew  not 
God  "  (9eoc).  But  nothing  among  the  Greeks  was  more  common 
than  the  name  Qsog  (God),  yet  its  deep  import,  in  the  Christian 
sense — the  attributes  of  the  Deity,  his  relations  to  the  human  race, 
and  experimental  religion — were  not  known  to  the  pagan  world. 

It  is  true  that  if  the  previous  history  of  the  Hebrews  showed 
that  the  name  Jehovah  was  absolutely  unknown  to  the  patriarchs,  the 
revelation  of  it  made  to  Moses  would  shine  forth  with  more  splendor, 
as  the  orb  of  day  without  a  preceding  twilight.  But  we  have  posi 
tive  proof  that  the  word  Jehovah  existed  among  the  Hebrews  pre 
viously  to  the  Mosaic  period,  and  analogy  is  against  the  hypothesis 
of  its  being  absolutely  new,  for  when  God  communicates  himself  to 
men  in  revelation  he  employs  terms  already  in  use,  and  gives  to 
them  a  new  and  deeper  meaning. 

We  are  not  to  suppose,  however,  that  the  word  Jehovah  was 
much  used  before  the  Almighty  revealed  himself  to  Moses.  But 
few  names  are  found  previously  to  this  in  which  this  one  occurs. 
We  may  mention  Jochebed  (whose  glory  is  Jehovah),  the  mother  of 
Moses,  and  Rephaiah  (whom  Jehovah  healed),  the  grandson  of 
Issachar.  Subsequently  to  the  Mosaic  age  the  word  is  very  often 
found  in  proper  names. 

In  the  history  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  the  name  Jehovah  almost 
everywhere  prevails,  and  Elohim  retires  into  the  background.  In 
the  history  of  Balaam,  however,  Elohim  is  frequently  used,  as  being 
more  suitable  in  describing  the  acts  of  a  prophet  without  the  pale 
of  Israel ;  yet  to  show  that  it  was  the  true  God  with  whom  Balaam 
had  relations,  Jehovah  is  occasionally  used. 

1  We  have  already  remarked  that  this  name,  !Tl!T,  was  in  all  probability  pro 
nounced  Jahveh,  the  future  of  the  verb  nii"l,  to  be,  The  Absolute  Being,  The  Eternal 
Divine  Essence.  It  is  evidently  a  Hebrew  word. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  85 

After  leaving  the  second  chapter  of  Exodus  we  can  find  no  sup 
port  whatever  for  the  document  hypothesis  in  the  use  of  the  Divine 
Names.  And  if  unity  of  authorship  is  to  be  denied  to  the  subse 
quent  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  must  be  done  on  wholly  different 
grounds.  So  far  as  pertains  to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  the  document 
hypothesis  by  no  means  disproves  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  since  Moses  in  the  composition  of  Genesis  might 
have  made  use  of  previously  written  memorials  of  his  ancestors. 
How  far  he  may  have  done  so  we  have  no  means  of  deter 
mining.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  divine  names  in  favour  of 
the  use  of  documents  by  Moses  is  by  no  means  conclusive,  and, 
at  most,  would  only  prove  that  the  memorials  of  but  one  annalist 
had  been  incorporated  into  the  book  of  Genesis.  But  if  such 
an  ante-Mosaic  history  existed,  what  it  embraced,  and  what  its 
primitive  form  was,  cannot  be  determined.  The  whole  Pentateuch 
is  uniform  in  its  language ;  the  archaisms  are  found  in  Deuteronomy 
as  well  as  in  Genesis ;  and  in  Genesis  itself  we  can  find  no  parts 
of  which  the  phraseology  belongs  to  an  ante-Mosaic  age. 

It  is  no  objection  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
that  the  laws  of  Moses  are  not  arranged  as  methodically  Unmethodlcai 
as  are  those  of  a  well-digested  code  of  a  highly  civilized  arrangement 
modern  State.  Moses  had  to  legislate  for  a  people  so-  objection™  to 
journing  in  the  desert,  and  for  them  when  they  should  Mosaic  author- 
enter  the  land  of  Canaan  and  live  under  altered  circum-  8Mp* 
stances.  The  laws  were  delivered  in  different  parts  of  their  jour- 
neyings,  and  sometimes  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  particular  cases. 
History  and  legislation  are  combined;  and  this  is  what  might  have 
been  expected  in  a  work  originating  with  Moses.  Had  the  Penta 
teuch  arisen  subsequently  to  the  Mosaic  age,  its  form  would  have 
been  different — the  legislation  pertaining  to  Israel  in  the  desert 
would  naturally  have  been  passed  over  as  entirely  belonging  to  the 
past,  or  as  being  altogether  unknown  ;  the  laws  would,  probably, 
have  had  a  different  form,  resembling  a  well-digested  code.  Many  in 
cidents  are  recorded  which  would  otherwise  have  faded  away  in  the 
lapse  of  time. 

The  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  endeavour  to 
point  out  contradictions  in  the  history,  and  inconsis-  supposedcon- 
tencies  in  some  parts  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  together 
with  repetitions  and  anachronisms,  as  affording  proof  tenoies. 
that  it  could  not  have  been  written  by  Moses.  But  great  caution  is 
necessary  in  considerations  of  such  a  nature,  lest  we  find  contradic 
tions  and  inconsistencies  where  none  exist.  Nor  do  we  see  how  a 
repetition  of  the  same  precept  militates  against  the  genuineness  of  the 


86  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Pentateuch  ;  for  it  is  less  likely  that  a  subsequent  collector  or  editor 
of  the  Mosaic  laws  would  repeat  a  precept  than  that  Moses  himself 
would.  And  if  in  a  few  instances  Moses  does  not  observe  the  exact 
order  of  time  in  his  history  and  legislation,  how  can  that  be  incon 
sistent  with  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  We  would  not  judge 
after  this  manner  in  respect  to  the  genuineness  of  any  other  book. 

Bleek  thinks  that  Exodus  vi,  2-12,  in  which  Jehovah  appears 
unto  Moses,  makes  the  impression  that  then  for  \hzfirst  time  God 
had  revealed  himself  to  Moses,  when  in  fact  he  had  already  com 
missioned  him  to  go  to  Pharaoh,  and  to  bring  Israel  out  of  Egypt 
(Exod.  iii,  iv).  He  also  holds  that  Exod.  vi,  28-vii,  7,  which  de 
scribes  a  revelation  of  God  to  Moses,  has  no  indication  that  Moses 
had  already  appeared  before  Pharaoh.  He  thinks  that  in  the 
original  narrative  of  the  appearance  of  God  to  Moses,  Exod.  vi,  1-13 
was  immediately  joined  to  Exod.  ii;  that  Exod.  vii,  1-7  perhaps  im 
mediately  followed  it,  and  that  the  rest  was  added  at  a  later  period 
from  oral  tradition  or  from  a  written  document.  But  portions  of 
these  supposed  later  chapters  (iii,  iv,  v),  in  which  God  reveals  him 
self  to  Moses,  and  in  which  the  Hebrew  legislator  appears  before 
Pharaoh,  are  referred  to  in  the  subsequent  history.  In  Exodus 
vii,  1 6,  God  commands  Moses  to  say  unto  Pharaoh:  "The  Lord 
God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  sent  me  unto  thee,  saying,  Let  my  people 
go,  that  they  may  serve  me  in  the  wilderness  ;  and,  behold,  hitherto 
thou  wouldst  not  hear."  In  ch.  iii,  18,  God  commands  Moses  and  the 
elders  of  Israel  to  go  unto  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  to  "  say  unto  him, 
The  Lord  God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  met  with  us  :  and  now  let  us 
go,  we  beseech  thee,  three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness,  that  we 
may  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  our  God."  Again,  in  ch.  v,  i,  it  is  stated  that 
Moses  and  Aaron  went  in  and  told  Pharaoh,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel,  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  hold  a  feast  unto  me 
in  the  wilderness."  It  is  clear  that  chs.  iii,  18,  and  v,  i,  are  referred 
to  in  ch.  vii,  16.  For  if  we  reject  iii,  iv,  and  v,  there  is  no  instance  in 
which  Moses  requested  Pharaoh  to  let  Israel  go  to  sacrifice  to  the 
Lord  in  the  wilderness;  and  the  clause  in  ch.  vii,  16,  "and  behold, 
hitherto  thou  wouldst  not  hear,"  shows  that  this  request  had  before 
been  made.  And  it  suits  the  language  much  better  to  suppose 
that  Pharaoh  had  already  considered  the  subject  for  some  days, 
than  that  it  had  been  presented  to  him  only  on  the  previous  day. 

Also  the  language,  "And  the  children  of  Israel  did  according  to 
the  word  of  Moses ;  and  they  borrowed  of  the  Egyptians  jewels  of 
silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment:  .  .  .  and  they  spoiled  the 
Egyptians  "  (xii,  35,  36),  seems  to  refer  to  iii,  22.  Certainly,  it  is 
the  same  phraseology. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  87 

If  Exodus  iii,  iv,  and  v  are  rejected  from  the  original  narrative, 
then  it  contained  no  account  of  the  calling  of  Moses  to  proofs  of  the 
his  great  work.  Such  a  narrative  is  inconceivable,  for  c*110*  Moses, 
this  was  a  great  epoch  in  the  history  of  Moses.  These  chapters  con 
tain  an  account  of  the  proofs  which  God  gave  Moses  and  the  children 
of  Israel  that  he  had  sent  him,  and  also  of  his  arrival  in  Egypt  from 
Midian.  They  are  necessary  parts  of  the  history.  When  Moses 
and  Aaron  visited  the  children  of  Israel,  and  Aaron  performed  the 
signs  before  them,  they  believed ;  and  when  they  learned  that  God 
was  about  to  deliver  them,  they  worshipped  him  (iv,  30,  31).  This 
statement  seems  natural,  for  the  Israelites,  in  their  misery,  would 
gladly  lay  hold  of  whatever  promised  them  any  ground  of  hope. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  when  the  demand  made  upon  Pharaoh  to  let 
them  go  had  caused  their  burdens  to  be  increased  (ch.  v),  and  Moses  a 
second  time  spoke  to  them  of  deliverance  by  the  Lord,  "  they  heark 
ened  not  unto  Moses  for  anguish  of  spirit  and  cruel  bondage  " 
(vi,  9).  And  this  is  what  might  have  been  expected.  Disappointed 
in  their  first  hope,  in  the  increase  of  their  miseries  they  gave  them 
selves  up  to  despair.  The  whole  history  is  consistent ;  and  the 
silence  in  chapter  vi  about  a  previous  appearance  of  Moses  before 
Pharaoh  can  by  no  means  negative  such  an  appearance. 

The  genealogy  of  Moses  and  Aaron  (Exodus  vi,  14-27)  has  fur 
nished  ground  of  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Genealogy  of 
Pentateuch.1  And  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  Moses  and  of 
genealogy,  in  its  form  and  position,  is  rather  peculiar.  Aaron' 
It  is  true,  there  is  nothing  strange  in  giving  the  names  of  the  ances 
tors  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  also  of  those  of  the  chief  families  of 
Levi,  but  especially  of  the  sons  of  Aaron,  whose  names  afterward 
appear  in  the  Mosaic  history  in  connexion  with  the  priesthood. 
Nor  would  a  catalogue  of  the  chief  Israelites  be  out  of  place  in  the 
history  of  the  Exodus.  The  most  peculiar  and  most  unsuitable 
part  of  the  list  is  found  in  the  verses  (14  and  15)  beginning  with  the 
words,  "  These  be  the  heads  of  their  fathers'  houses,"  and  followed 
with  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Reuben  and  the  sons  of  Simeon. 
After  this  the  families  of  Levi  are  given,  ending  with  the  remark  : 
"These  are  that  Moses  and  Aaron." 

The  sons  of  Reuben  and  Simeon  stand  without  any  additions,  just 
as  they  are  given  in  the  list  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  who  came  down 
into  Egypt  (Gen.  xlvi,  9,  10).  Not  even  the  ages  of  Reuben  and 
Simeon  when  they  died  are  stated  ;  while  in  the  list  of  the  ancestors 
of  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  their  relatives,  and  the  sons  of  Aaron  and 
his  grandson,  the  ages  of  Levi,  Kohath,  and  Amram,  at  the  time  of 
1  Bleek,  among  others,  objects  to  the  genealogy,  p.  222. 


88  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

their  death,  are  given.  The  sons  of  Moses,  on  account  of  their  being 
of  little  importance  in  the  history,  are  not  named.  This  list  con 
tains  no  one  born  later  than  the  Mosaic  period,  and  the  fact  that  it 
gives  the  ages  of  several  at  their  death  shows  that  it  must  have  been 
written  down  in  the  Mosaic  time,  or  soon  afterward.  It  seems  not 
improbable  that  Reuben  and  Simeon,  and  their  sons  (in  vi,  14,  15), 
have  been  interpolated  from  Gen.  xlvi,  9,  10,  just  as  we  have  in  Matt, 
xxvii,  35,  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet,  They  parted  my  garments  among  them,  and  upon  my  vest 
ure  did  they  cast  lots,"  interpolated  from  Psalm  xxii,  18,  or  from 
John  xix,  24.  On  this  hypothesis,  "These  be  the  heads  of  their 
fathers'  houses  "  (Exod.  vi,  14)  will  refer  to  Moses  and  Aaron. 

In  Exod.  xix,  22,  it  is  said  :  "  And  let  the  priests  also,  which  come 
near  to  the  Lord,  sanctify  themselves  ;  "  and  also  in  verse  24 : 
"  Let  not  the  priests  and  the  people  break  through."  As  Aaron  and 
his  sons  had  not  yet  been  consecrated  to  the  priesthood,  some  have 
thought  that  those  passages  in  which  priests  are  mentioned  are  an 
achronisms.  But  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  Israelites  had  no  priests 
before  Aaron  and  his  sons  ?  Did  they  live  several  centuries  in 
Egypt,  among  a  people  who  had  a  powerful  priesthood,  without  ever 
having  any  priests  themselves?  Were  they  wholly  without  religion 
in  Egypt,  no  one  sacrificing  to  Jehovah,  nor  making  intercession  for 
the  people  ?  Such  an  idea  is  preposterous.  It  has  been  objected 
that  Exod.  xxxiv,  23-26  is  a  repetition  of  Exod.  xxiii,  17-19,'  for 
each  of  these  sections  contains  the  command  that  all  male  Israel 
ites  should  appear  before  Jehovah  three  times  a  year,  and  that  the 
blood  of  the  Lord's  sacrifice  should  not  be  offered  with  leaven, 
"neither  shall  the  sacrifice  of  the  feast  of  the  passover  be  left  unto 
the  morning.  The  first  of  the  firstfruits  of  thy  land  thou  shalt  bring 
unto  the  house  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in 
his  mother's  milk."  But  the  precepts  of  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  of 
Repetition  for  Exodus  were  delivered  when  Moses  went  up  to  God  in 
emphasis.  Mount  Sinai  a  second  time,  to  have  renewed  the  tables 
of  stone  which  he  had  broken  ;  and  under  these  circumstances  some 
of  the  precepts  found  in  Exod.  xxiii — which  God  delivered  to 
Moses  when  he  first  went  up  to  Mount  Sinai — are  repeated  for 
emphasis. 

In  Exod.  xxiii,  9,  the  precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  oppress  a  stranger  : 
for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,  seeing  ye  were  strangers  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,"  is  a  repetition  of  Exod.  xxii,  21.  But  in  both  cases 
this  precept  stands  connected  with  other  benevolent  precepts  of  a 
different  character;  and  its  being  twice  given  shows  the  stress  that 
1  By  Bleek,  pp.  218,  219. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  89 

was  laid  upon  it.  The  twentieth  chapter  of  Leviticus  has  been  re 
garded  as  scarcely  anything  more  than  a  repetition  of  the  eighteenth 
of  Leviticus ;  but  there  is  this  important  difference,  that,  while  the 
latter  chapter  merely  sets  forth  the  things  prohibited,  the  former 
contains  the  penalties  annexed  to  the  crimes. 

In  Numbers  chapter  xi  there  is  an  account  of  the  sending  of 
quails  to  the  Israelites,  which  were  to  last  them  a  whole  month.  As 
no  mention  is  made  that  they  were  before  sent,  Bleek  '  thinks  that  the 
sending  of  these  birds  as  stated  in  Exodus  xvi  never  occurred,  but 
that  the  real  event  in  Numbers  xi  had  been  erroneously  supposed 
to  have  occurred  at  the  same  time  that  manna  was  first  given.  But 
the  argument  from  silence  is  very  delusive.  Nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  the  language  to  indicate  that  quails  had  never  been  sent  before. 
What  excited  the  incredulity  of  Moses  was,  that  God  had  promised 
to  feed  all  the  people  of  Israel  with  flesh  for  a  whole  month.  We 
have  no  indication  in  Exodus  xvi  whether  the  quails  were  sent  once 
or  several  times.  But  how  could  the  historian  have  made  such  a 
blunder  as  Bleek  thinks  he  did,  when  the  history,  whether  we  sup 
pose  it  written  by  Moses  or  not,  shows  such  a  minute  knowledge  of 
events?  The  lusting  of  the  Israelites  after  flesh,  the  sending  them 
immense  quantities  of  quails,  the  plague  that  broke  out  in  conse 
quence  of  the  murmuring  against  God,  and  the  naming  of  the  place 
where  they  were  encamped  Kibroth  hattaavah  (the  graves  of  lust] — 
all  combine  to  make  the  narrative  in  Numbers  xi  salient  and  mem 
orable  in  the  history  of  the  exodus.  The  natural  tendency,  so  far 
from  producing  the  account  of  the  quails  in  Exodus  xvi,  would  have 
been  to  blot  it  out  altogether. 

Nor  is  there  any  good  reason  for  supposing,*  in  the  account  of 
Moses  bringing  water  out  of  the  rock,  and  calling  the  place  Massah 
{temptation,  trial],  and  also  Meribah  (strife,  Exodus  xvii,  1-7),  that 
two  different  occurrences  are  here  blended  into  one,  because  in 
Numbers  xx,  1-13,  on  another  occasion,  when  the  people  murmured 
for  the  want  of  water,  Moses  smote  the  rock,  and  the  waters  gushed 
forth,  and  the  fountain  was  called  the  water  of  Meribah.  In  each 
case  there  was  Meribah  or  strife.  But  the  fountain  first  named  was 
called  Massah,  and  the  other  name,  Meribah,  was  also  given  it  at  the 
time  of  the  occurence.  But  when  the  second  fountain,  called  Mer 
ibah,  was  opened  at  Kadesh,  the  first  named  fountain,  in  Exod.  xvii,  7, 
was  called  by  no  other  name  than  Massah,  as  is  evident  from  Dent. 
vi,  1 6  ;  ix,  22  ;  xxxiii,  8,  where  the  fountain  is  so  styled.  How 
could  it  be  otherwise,  if  confusion  was  to  be  avoided? 

In  Numbers  ix,  15-23,  we  have,  in  the  particular  account  of  the 
1  Page  219.  'Against  Bleek,  pp.  219,  220. 


00  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

cloud,  and  the  appearance  of  fire  that  rested  upon  the  tabernacle  in 
connexion  with  the  journeyings  of  the  Israelites,  an  amplification 
of  the  statement  in  Exodus  xl,  34-38,  made  when  the  tabernacle 
was  set  up.  The  account  in  Num.  ix  was  written  at  least  a  year 
after  that  in  Exod.  xl ;  for  in  the  former  it  is  stated,  "  whether  it 
were  two  days,  a  month,  or  a  year,  that  the  cloud  tarried  upon  the 
tabernacle."  In  these  statements  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  different  names  by  which  Moses's  father-in-law  seems  to  be 
various  names  ca^e^  create  a  difficulty,  though  not  of  a  serious  nature, 
of  Moses's  fa-  It  seems  best  to  regard  Raguel  as  the  father-in-law  of 
Moses,  and  to  suppose  Jethro  and  Hobab  to  be  his  broth 
ers-in-law.  The  Septuagint  renders  the  Hebrew  jnh  (translated  fa 
ther-in-law  in  our  version)  by  yajuj3p6c,-  which  means  brother-in-law 
and  father-in-law.  With  this  rendering — brother-in-law — all  is  easy. 
Moses  marries  the  daughter  of  Raguel,  priest  of  Midian.  About 
forty  years  after  this,  when,  we  may  suppose,  Raguel  was  dead,  Jethro 
his  son  succeeded  him  as  priest,  and  Moses,  his  brother-in-law,  was 
keeping  his  flocks  (Exod.  iii,  i).  Hobab,  another  brother-in-law  of 
Moses,  visits  him  on  his  journey,  as  we  find  in  Numbers  x,  29.  The 
visit  of  Hobab  to  Moses  mentioned  in  this  last  verse  is  evidently  a 
different  one  from  that  described  in  Exod.  xviii  as  having  been  made 
by  Jethro,  in  company  with  the  wife  and  the  two  sons  of  Moses. 
The  position  of  the  account  of  this  visit  of  Jethro  to  Moses  has 
given  offense  to  some.  It  is  stated  (Exod.  xviii.  5)  that  Moses  was 
encamped  at  the  mount  of  God,  which  is  the  name  given  in  Exodus 
iii,  i,  to  Horeb;  while  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter  (xix)  we 
have  an  account  of  the  arrival  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  desert 
of  Sinai,  and  of  their  encamping  "before  the  mount,"  that  is,  Mount 
Sinai.  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  visit  of  Jethro  is 
misplaced,  since  it  is  not  stated  that  Moses  had  already  arrived  at 
Mount  Sinai.  In  Exod.  xvii,  6,  while  the  Israelites  were  still  at 
Rephidim,  God  says  unto  Moses,  "  Behold,  I  will  stand  before  thee 
there  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb ;  and  thou  shalt  smite  the  rock,  and 
there  shall  come  water  out  of  it,  that  the  people  mav  drink.  And 
Moses  did  so  in  the  sight  of  the  elders  of  Israel."  We  have  already 
remarked  that  Horeb  is  called  the  mount,  or  mountain  of  God  (Exod. 
iii,  i) ;  and  it  is  evident  here  that  the  Mount  Sinai  from  which  the  law 
was  proclaimed  is  not  intended,  for  it  is  stated  that  Moses  led  his 
flock  to  Horeb.  At  Rephidim  Moses  was  encamped  near  a  mount 
ain  or  hill,  for  he  says,  "  To-morrow  I  will  stand  upon  the  top  of 
the  hill."  Horeb  was  a  range  of  which  Sinai  was  a  peak. 

Bleek  thinks  that  references  are  made,  in  the  account  of  Jethro's 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  91 

visit,  to  the  tabernacle,  which  was  not  yet  built.1  His  Bieek's  sharp 
critical  powers  must  here  be  sharp  indeed  !  It  is  stated  critlcism. 
that  Jethro  "  took  a  burnt  offering  and  sacrifices  for  God  :  and  Aaron 
came,  and  all  the  elders  of  Israel,  to  eat  bread  with  Moses'  father- 
in-law  before  God."  Wherever  sacrifice  was  offered,  it  was  before 
God.  Already,  in  Exod.  xvi,  9,  Moses  commands  Aaron  to  say  to 
the  whole  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,  "  Come  near  before 
the  Lord."  Even  in  reference  to  Nimrod  it  is  said,  "He  was  a 
mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord  "  (Gen.  x,  9).  We,  as  Christians,  in 
private  and  public,  speak  of  coming  unto  or  before  the  Lord.  Nor 
is  there  any  necessary  reference  to  the  tabernacle  in  the  language  of 
Moses,  "  The  people  come  unto  me  to  inquire  of  God."  But  even 
if  Moses  had  already  arrived  at  Mount  Sinai  when  Jethro  visited 
him  it  would  create  no  difficulty,  since  Moses  might  prefer  to  record 
it  just  before  describing  the  arrival  at  Sinai,  that  he  might  not  inter 
rupt  the  thread  of  events  connected  with  that  arrival. 

In  Exodus  xxxiii,  7-11,  it  is  said  that  "  Moses  took  the  tent  (not 
tabernacle,  as  in  English  version)  and  pitched  it  without  the  camp,  afar 
off  from  the  camp,  and  called  it  the  Tent  of  the  Congregation.  And 
it  came  to  pass  that  every  one  that  sought  the  Lord  went  out  unto 
the  tent  of  the  congregation."  It  is  evident  that  the  tent  here 
spoken  of  was  a  different  structure  from  the  tabernacle  which  Moses 
was  commanded  to  have  built.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  it  was  the  tent  which  Moses  had  brought  up  with  him  out  of 
Egypt,  in  which  he  had  been  living,  and  to  which  the  people  re 
sorted  on  important  occasions  to  consult  him,  and  from  which  or 
ders  were  issued.  On  the  occasion  referred  to  the  people  had 
committed  a  great  sin  in  worshiping  the  golden  calf  which  Aaron 
had  made  ;  and,  on  account  of  this  sin,  Moses  removes  his  tent 
from  among  them,  and  God  talks  with  him  at  the  door  of  the  tent, 
far  away  from  the  sinful  people.3  God  had  very  recently  delivered 
to  Moses  the  ten  commandments,  with  various  other  precepts,  and 
he  now  appears  to  Moses  in  his  tent,  thus  showing  to  all  Israel 
that,  while  they  have  sinned,  with  Moses  he  talks  face  to  face. 
At  the  same  time  this  tent  was  to  serve  as  a  temporary  arrange 
ment  until  the  great  tabernacle,  of  which  it  was  a  type,  should  be 
built. 

The  enumeration  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Numbers  i,  in  con 
nexion  with  the  statement  of  the  amount  of  money  re-  Numbers  ana 
ceived  and  appropriated  to  the  building  of  the  taber-  contributions 

nacle  (Exod.  xxxviii,  25,  26),  creates  a  difficulty.     Ac-  ollsrael< 

1  Page  223. 

8  It  is  plain  that  the  tent  itself  was  no  new  contrivance,  which  removes  Bleek's 
objection  that  its  institution  appears  too  late.  Pp.  223,  224. 


92       .  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

cording  to  Exod.  xl,  17,  the  tabernacle  was  set  up  on  the  first  day  of 
the  first  month  of  the  second  year  after  the  children  of  Israel  had  left 
Egypt ;  while  the  command  to  Moses  "  to  take  the  sum  of  all  the  con 
gregation  of  Israel  "  was  given  on  the  first  day  of  the  second  month  of 
the  second  year  after  they  had  left  Egypt  (Num.  i,  i),  just  one  mont\, 
therefore,  after  the  tabernacle  was  set  up.  Yet  it  is  stated  in  Exod. 
xxxviii,  25,  26  :  "  The  silver  of  them  that  were  numbered  of  the  con 
gregation  was  a  hundred  talents,  and  a  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
threescore  and  fifteen  shekels,  after  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary :  a 
bekah  for  every  man,  that  is,  half  a  shekel,  after  the  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary,  for  every  one  that  went  to  be  numbered,  from  twenty  years 
old  and  upward,  for  six  hundred  thousand  and  three  thousand  and 
five  hundred  and  fifty  men."  The  largest  portion  of  this  silver  was 
employed  in  making  sockets  for  the  sanctuary  and  the  vail  (Exod. 
xxxviii,  27,  28).  The  number  of  the  Israelites  here  given  is  precise 
ly  the  same  as  that  in  Num.  i,  46,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
both  accounts  refer  to  one  enumeration ;  the  first  giving  merely  the 
result,  and  the  second  the  particulars.  For,  apart  from  the  fact  that 
the  totals  in  both  Exod.  xxxviii,  26  and  Num.  i,  46  are  the  same, 
it  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  be 
numbered  twice  in  &few  months.1  The  first  enumeration  was  made 
to  ascertain  the  numbers  in  reference  to  the  poll  tax  for  the  taber 
nacle  and  the  marshalling  of  the  armies  :  the  second 'was  made  about 
thirty-eight  years  after  the  first  (Num.  xxvi,  2-51) — a  short  time 
before  the  Israelites  entered  Canaan — that  the  land  might  be  di 
vided  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  each  tribe  (Num.  xxvi,  53-56). 
These  two  were  the  only  enumerations  from  the  time  the  Israelites 
left  Egypt  until  they  reached  Canaan. 

J.  D.  Michaelis  seems  to  give  the  best  solution  of  the  difficulty 
under  consideration.  "An  exact  enumeration,"  says  he,  "  of  six 
hundred  thousand  men  demands  quite  a  long  time,  if  all  the  names 
are  to  be  written  down.  It  had  proceeded  so  far  before  the  build 
ing  of  the  tabernacle  that  every  male  over  twenty  years  of  age  was 
compelled  to  report  himself  and  pay  his  poll  tax;  but  in  the  second 
month  of  the  second  year  all  these  names  were  reduced  to  order, 
and  entered  into  a  kind  of  register  by  Moses,  Aaron,  and  the  heads 
of  the  twelve  tribes  ;  and  whoever  in  the  former  year  had  paid  his 
poll  tax  was  regarded  as  living,  though  he  had  since  died ;  and  who 
ever  at  that  time  was  under  twenty  years  of  age,  and  had  paid  no 
poll  tax,  was  still  considered  under  twenty.  It  is  necessary  to  read 
only  Num.  i,  2,  3,  to  see  that  the  Israelites  here  are  not  simply  num. 
bered,  but  enrolled  by  name,  and  to  each  one  a  position  is  to  be  as- 

1  Colenso  absurdly  supposes  that  here  we  have  two  separate  enumerations. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  93 

signed  in  the  army,  which  had  not  been  done  when  the  poll  tax  was 
paid."  *  The  Levites  and  the  firstborn  of  the  other  tribes  were  num 
bered  afterward. 

Bleek  thinks  that  the  tabernacle  could  not  have  been  built  in  so 
short  a  time  as  eight  or  nine  months,  and  that  the  date  Bieek's  dim- 
in  Exodus  (xl,  17),  where  it  is  said  that  the  tabernacle 
was  set  up  on  the  first  day  of  the  first  month  of  the 
second  year,  is  placed  too  early.3  But  we  see  no  good  reason  for 
this  opinion.  The  people  contributed  so  liberally  of  their  means 
that  Moses  commanded  that  no  more  work  should  be  made  "  for 
the  offering  of  the  sanctuary  "  (Exod.  xxxvi,  5,  6).  The  material 
was  worked  up  by  "  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab,  and  every  wise-hearted 
man  in  whose  heart  the  Lord  had  put  wisdom,  even  every  one 
whose  heart  stirred  him  up  to  come  unto  the  work  to  do  it  "  (Exod. 
xxxvi,  2).  In  the  ardour  of  their  first  love,  they  laboured  with  very 
great  zeal  and  cheerfulness. 

Further,  the  history  of  the  building  of  the  tabernacle,  the  numbering 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  the  position  of  their  camps,  are  nar 
rated  with  such  circumstantiality,  and  so  many  marks  of  truth,  that 
an  error  in  the  date  of  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle  is  inadmissible. 
The  number  of  the  firstborn  males  among  the  children  of  Israel 
from  a  month  old  and  upward,  omitting  those  of  the  Levites,  is  put 
at  twenty-two  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-three  (Num. 
iii,  43).  Michaelis  computes  that  this  gives  one  firstborn  to  every 
forty-two  males,  which  he  regards  as  a  proof  that  polygamy  must 
have  been  extensively  practised  by  the  Israelites  in  Egypt.  For, 
however  many  wives  a  man  might  have,  and  whatever  number  of 
sons,  but  one  of  these  could  be  his  firstborn.  Perhaps  the  edict  of 
Pharaoh  to  drown  all  the  male  children  of  the  Israelites  diminished 
greatly  the  number  of  the  firstborn  males,  and  on  account  of  the 
great  loss  among  the  firstborn  of  Israel  God  may  have  smitten  the 
firstborn  of  the  Egyptians  as  a  penalty. 

In  the  enumeration  of  the  males  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  from  a  month 
old  and  upward,  the  whole  number  is  stated  to  be  twenty-   Question  of 
two  thousand  (Num.  iii,  39),  while  the  sum  of  the  three  the  m-stbom 
numbers  (Num.  iii,  22,  28,  34)  is  three  hundred  more.   r 
But  it  has  been   supposed  that  the  three  hundred  in  excess  were 
themselves  firstborn.     As  the  whole  number  of  the  firstboin  males 
of  the  children  of  Israel  belonged  to  Jehovah,  those  of  Levi  as  well 
as  the  rest,  the  actual  substitute  for  the  firstborn  of  Israel  was  the 
sons  of  Levi  diminished  by  the  number  of  the  firstborn.     This  left 

1  From  his  German  Annotations  on  Numbers,  I.     Gottingen  und  Gotha, 
9  Pp.  224,  225. 


<M  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  number  of  the  firstborn  of  Israel  in  excess  of  the  Levites  dimin 
ished  by  the  firstborn,  two  hundred  and  seventy-three,  redeemed 
by  paying  five  shekels  apiece  to  Aaron  and  his  sons  (Num.  iii, 
46-48). 

In  Numbers  ix,  12,  it  is  said  that  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  and 
gave  him  directions  respecting  the  passover,  in  the  first  month  of  the 
second  year  after  they  were  come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  while  in 
Numbers  i,  1,2,  the  command  to  take  .the  sum  of  the  Israelites  is  given 
on  the  first  of  the  following  month.  Bleek *  makes  this  want  of  exact 
chronological  order  an  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  see  its  force.  But  Moses  had 
a  good  reason  for  his  chronological  arrangement.  He  tells  us  that 
Jehovah  had  given  directions — in  the  first  month  of  the  second  year — 
respecting  the  observance  of  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  month  according  to  its  rites.  Here  Moses  evidently  refers  to 
the  precepts  already  given  in  Leviticus  xxiii,  5-8,  and  to  the  fact 
that  the  people  kept  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth  of  the  first 
month.  But  there  were  certain  men  who  had  been  defiled  by 
the  dead  body  of  a  man,  so  that  they  could  not  keep  the  passover, 
and  who  made  application  to  Moses  and  Aaron  to  have  their  seem 
ingly  hard  case  considered.  Moses  made  known  their  case  to  Je 
hovah,  who  directed  that  all  persons  who  were  unable  to  eat  the 
passover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  on  account  of  un- 
cleanness  or  being  on  a  journey  afar  off,  should  keep  it  on  the  four 
teenth  day  of  the  second  month.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  these 
unclean  persons  kept  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth  of  this  second 
month,  and  this  ninth  chapter  is  the  very  place  in  which  to  insert 
the  events  of  that  part  of  the  second  month.  And,  in  order  to  de 
scribe  what  was  to  be  done  on  \\\&\.  fourteenth  day,  the  historian  goes 
back  to  relate  the  incidents  that  led  to  the  observance  of  the  pass- 
over  by  some  on  that  day.  In  the  very  next  chapter  (x,  n)  he 
states  that  on  the  twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  of  the  second 
year  the  Israelites  left  the  wilderness  of  Sinai ;  that  is,  a  few  days 
after  the  unclean  persons  had  eaten  the  passover.  What  can  be 
more  natural  than  this  chronological  arrangement? 

The  statements  made  in  respect  to  the  service  of  the  Levites  in 
the  tabernacle  (Numbers  iv,  viii,  24-26)  have  been  represented  as 
contradictory.  In  the  former  chapter  they  are  to  serve  from  thirty 
years  of  age  until  they  are  fifty ;  while  in  the  latter  passage  their 
time  of  service  is  from  twenty-five  until  fifty.  But  the  kind  of  ser 
vice  in  each  case  is  different.  In  Numbers  iv,  the  Levites  who  bore 
the  various  parts  of  the  tabernacle  during  the  sojourn  in  the  desert  are 
assigned  to  this  work.  They  were  between  the  ages  of  thirty  and  fifty, 

1  Page  225. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  95 

in  the  vigour  of  life,  and  were  still  to  wander  many  years  in  the  desert. 
This  was  a  special  service  which  would  terminate  when  the  laber- 
nacle  had  obtained  a  fixed  locality  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 
But  in  Numbers  viii,  24-26,  those  who  are  to  serve  from  twenty-five 
until  they  are  fifty  are  said  to  "  go  in  to  wait  upon  the  service  of 
the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation."  Here  the  precept  has  no  spe 
cial  reference  to  time  or  place,  but  is  in  its  highest  sense  general. 

But,  further,  it  is  evident  that  the  first  of  these  precepts  had  its 
origin  in  the  desert;  and  the  second  one,  if  originating  in  a  period 
subsequent  to  Moses,  would  have  repealed  the  first,  which  would,  in 
all  probability,  have  still  been  in  existence.  Can  it  be  supposed  for 
a  moment  that  a  later  law,  for  no  assignable  reason,  and  contradict 
ing  the  Mosaic  regulation,  was  invented  and  attributed  to  Moses  ? 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  UNITY  OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

'HPHERE  is  a  unity  of  plan  pervading  the  whole  Pentateuch,  which 
*    shows  that  it  is  the  work  of  one  mind. 

A  collection  of  independent  documents  brought  together  would 
have  no  unity  nor  coherence.  The  book  of  Genesis  begins  with  the 
creation  of  the  world  in  six  days,  and  contains  a  brief  history  of 
man's  fall,  his  expulsion  from  the  garden  of  Eden,  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  antediluvian  world,  the  deluge,  the  preservation  of 
Noah  and  his  family,  the  peopling  of  the  earth  by  the  sons  of  Noah, 
the  calling  of  Abraham,  the  principal  incidents  in  his  life  and  in  the 
lives  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  Esau,  the  selling  of  Joseph  into  Egypt, 
and  his  exaltation  there,  which  prepares  the  way  for  the  removal 
to  Egypt  of  Jacob  and  his  family. 

The  book  of  Exodus  opens  with  a  reference  to  Jacob's  descent 
into  Egypt,  and  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  oppression  of  the 
Israelites,  their  deliverance  from  the  Egyptians  through  Thecontent8of 
Moses,  the  divinely  commissioned  leader  and  lawgiver;  the  Books  of 
the  wanderings  in  the  Desert,  the  giving  of  the  law  from  J 
Mount  Sinai,  the  directions  for  building  the  altars  of  sacrifice  and 
the  tabernacle,  and  various  precepts. 

The  book  of  Leviticus  is  devoted  to  the  services  of  the  priests, 
their  duties,  the  law  of  sacrifices,  and  many  other  matters.  The 
book  of  Numbers  opens  with  the  enumeration  of  the  children  of  Is 
rael,  and  contains  both  historical  events  and  precepts. 

In  Deuteronomy,  when  the  Israelites  have  arrived  in  the  land  of 


96  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Moab,  near  the  close  of  the  forty  years  wandering,  Mnses  rehearses 
their  history  from  the  time  they  left  Horeb,  and  also  repeats  and  en 
forces,  and  in  some  cases  slightly  modifies,  precepts  before  delivered. 
He  also  inculcates  new  precepts,  some  of  which  have  especial  refer 
ence  to  the  Israelites  when  they  shall  have  entered  the  land  of 
Canaan — for  example,  the  directions  concerning  war.  He  appoints 
cities  of  refuge,  gives  directions  respecting  the  setting  up  of  stones 
on  Mount  Ebal  upon  which  all  the  words  of  the  law  are  to  be  writ 
ten,  pronounces  the  blessings  that  shall  come  upon  the  people  if 
obedient,  and  the  curses  that  will  overtake  them  if  they  are  disobe 
dient.  He  at  the  same  time  predicts  their  disobedience.  In  con 
clusion,  he  teaches  them  a  song,  and  pronounces  a  blessing  upon 
the  different  tribes  of  Israel.  Nothing  could  be  more  suitable  to  the 
position  of  Moses  than  this  whole  book,  and  it  is  throughout  ex 
ceedingly  natural.  A  chapter  by  a  later  hand,  containing  the  death 
of  the  great  lawgiver,  closes  it.  Without  Deuteronomy  the  Mosaic 
legislation  would  be  incomplete.  There  is  nothing  in  the  ending 
of  the  book  of  Numbers  to  indicate  that  it  is  the  conclusion  of  the 
laws  of  Moses.  The  whole  spirit  of  Deuteronomy  is  Mosaic. 

If  we  examine  the  Pentateuch  more  closely  we  shall  find  that  it 
is  bound  together  by  indissoluble  connexions,  and  permeated  with 
the  spirit  of  unity. 

In  the  book  of  Genesis  we  have  a  connected  history,  in  which  the 
Sacred  charao-  genealogies  are  carefully  given,  the  age  of  the  antediluvi- 
ter  of  the  hia-  ans  when  the  eldest  son  was  born,  and  the  length  of  their 
lives.  The  same  method  is  generally  pursued  in  narra 
ting  the  history  after  the  flood,  down  to  the  close  of  the  book.  No 
where  in  Genesis  is  the  age  of  the  father  given  when  any  of  the  daugh 
ters  were  born,  and  the  names  of  the  latter  are  rarely  mentioned. 
The  history  is  evidently  of  a  sacred  character,  written  from  a  theo 
cratic  standpoint.  A  standard  of  moral  right,  with  which  the  ac 
tions  of  men  are  compared,  and  approved  or  condemned,  is  every 
where  recognised  in  Genesis.  The  growing  wickedness  of  the  an 
tediluvian  world,  culminating  in  bringing  down  the  wrath  of  Jehovah 
upon  it,  and  the  pious  exceptions,  are  prominently  set  forth  by  the 
sacred  writer. 

With  the  exception  of  the  peopling  of  the  earth  by  the  sons  of 
Noah,  the  history  generally  limits  itself  to  the  line  of  the  chosen 
people ;  and  other  nations  are  noticed  only  in  connexion  with  the 
patriarchs,  as  we  see  in  the  account  of  the  battle  of  the  kings  and 
the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  with  which  Abraham  and 
Lot  are  historically  related. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  whole  of  Genesis  is  an  introduction  and 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  97 

preparation  for  the  Mosaic  Covenant  contained  in  the  fol-  Genesis  an  in- 
lowing  books.  The  sanctification  of  the  seventh  day  at  troduction. 
the  end  of  creation  is  intimately  connected  with  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 
The  sacrifices  of  Abel,  Noah,  and  Abraham,  and  the  distinction 
made  between  clean  and  unclean  animals  in  the  account  of  the  pres 
ervation  of  living  beings  in  the  ark  during  the  deluge,  are  intimately 
related  to  the  Mosaic  institutions.  The  history  of  Joseph  in  Egypt, 
though  it  seems  to  break  the  thread  of  patriarchal  history,  is,  in 
fact,  a  necessary  part  of  that  history,  as  it  prepares  the  way  for  the 
descent  of  Israel  into  Egypt. 

Between  Genesis  and  Exodus  there  is  a  close  connexion.  God 
makes  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  promises  him  that  his  poster 
ity  shall  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  that  in  his  seed  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  In  Genesis,  also,  God  declares  to 
Abraham  that  before  his  descendants  shall  come  into  possession  of 
that  land,  they  shall  be  strangers  in  another,  in  which  they 
shall  serve  and  be  afflicted,  and  that  the  "  nation  whom  tween 


they  shall  serve  will  I  judge,  and  afterward  shall  come  out  a 
with  great  substance.  But  in  the  fourth  generation  they  shall  come 
hither  again."  Chap,  xv,  13-16.  Compare  this  with  the  afflictions  of 
the  Israelites  detailed  in  the  first  chapters  of  Exodus,  and  with  xii,  40, 
where  it  is  said  that  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land 
of  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years.  The  declaration  made  to 
Abraham,  being  prophecy,  was  expressed  in  round  numbers,  while  the 
history  gives  the  exact  number.  In  Exodus  xiii,  19,  it  is  stated  that 
"  Moses  took  the  bones  of  Joseph  with  him  ;  for  he  had  straitly  sworn 
the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  God  will  surely  visit  you  ;  and  ye  shall 
carry  up  my  bones  away  hence  with  you."  This  refers  to  Gen.  1,  25. 

In  the  third  month  after  leaving  Egypt  the  Israelites  come  to 
Mount  Sinai  (Exod.  xix,  i,  2).  There  the  Mosaic  legislation  prop 
erly  begins  with  the  delivery  of  the  decalogue,  the  moral  law^  under 
the  most  solemn  and  awe-inspiring  circumstances.  Then  follow  four 
chapters  of  precepts  ;  after  which  instructions  are  given  respecting 
the  making  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  the  building  of  the  taber 
nacle.  These  could  not  be  made  while  the  Israelites  were  travel 
ling,  and  as  they  were  necessary  in  divine  worship,  the  building  of 
them  in  this  stage  of  the  wandering  is  very  appropriate.  In  the  lat 
ter  part  of  the  same  book  we  have  a  description  of  the  dress  of  the 
high  priest,  his  consecration,  and  matters  pertaining  to  his  service. 
All  of  this  seems  to  be  in  the  proper  place. 

When  the  tabernacle  had  been  built,  and  Aaron  and  his  sons  were 
ready  for  the  consecration  to  the  divine  service,  Moses  delivered  pre 
cepts  respecting  the  offerings  to  be  made  to  Jehovah,  and  prescribed 
VOL.  I.—  7 


98  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  duties  of  the  priests — which  occupy  the  most  of  the  Book  of 
Leviticus.  In  the  first  part  of  Numbers  we  have  an  enumeration  of 
the  people,  to  ascertain  who  are  liable  to  military  duties  and  to  other 
services.  The  remainder  of  the  book  is  occupied  with  history  and 
precepts.  That  Moses,  at  the  close  of  the  forty  years'  wandering, 
should  have  rehearsed  the  most  important  event?  in  the  history  of 
the  Israelites,  as  we  find  in  Deuteronomy,  is  quite  natural.  The  ad 
ditional  precepts  which  he  inculcates — for  example,  the  directions  for 
carrying  on  war  when  they  are  about  to  enter  the  land  of  Canaan, 
where  they  would  have  many  wars  to  wage — seem  suitable  to  this 
stage  of  the  history ;  and  the  earnest  exhortation,  and  the  deep  so 
licitude  of  the  lawgiver  for  the  happiness  of  his  people,  are  a  fitting 
close  of  his  wonderful  life. 

But  the  connexion  of  the  events  of  the  Pentateuch  is  not  the  only 
proof  of  its  unity.  A  stronger  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  uniform 
ity  of  language  that  pervades  the  whole  five  books,  especially  the 
archaisms  which  disappear  in  the  subsequent  books,  even  in  those 
so  ancient  as  Joshua  and  Judges. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  99 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  ART  OF  ALPHABETICAL  WRITING 
AMONG  THE  HEBREWS,  AND  THE  STATE  OF  THE  ARTS  AND 
SCIENCES  IN  GENERAL  IN  EGYPT  IN  THE  MOSAIC  AGE. 

A  S  a  preliminary  to  the  discussion  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
•**•  tateuch,  there  arises  the  question  of  the  antiquity  of  the  art  of 
alphabetical  writing  among  the  Hebrews :  for  if  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  art  was  well  known  among  that  people  in  the  Mosaic  age, 
the  probability  that  their  great  lawgiver  wrote  his  laws  will  be 
very  great. 

Writing  in  hieroglyphics,  which  preceded  alphabetical  writing, 
was  known  and  practised  in  Egypt  at  a  very  remote  period.  The 
sacred  books  of  Thoth,  the  Egyptian  Mercury  or  Hermes,  were 
written,  in  part  at  least,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Suphis,  (Cheops,)  to 
whom  the  books  were  attributed.1  This  Memphitic  king,  according 
to  Wilkinson,  reigned  about  B.  C.  2450.  Numerous  commentaries 
were  written  on  these  sacred  books  of  Thoth.  "  Papyri  are  of  the 
most  remote  Pharaonic  periods,  and  the  same  mode  of  writing  on 
them  is  shown  from  the  sculptures  to  have  been  common  in  the  age 
of  Suphis,  or  Cheops,  the  builder  of  the  Great  Pyramid."8  "  Every 
thing  was  done  in  writing."1  They  had  decimal  as  well  as  duodec 
imal  calculation,  and  the  reckoning  by  units,  tens,  hundreds,  and 
thousands,  before  the  pyramids  were  built.4  Alphabetical  writing 
came  into  use  several  centuries  later.  "  From  the  Pal-  . 

.    .  Alphabetical 

estimans,  the  people  near  the  Mediterranean  Sea  re-  writing  in 
ceived  their  alphabet.     The  sounds  of  the  alphabet  itself,  Palestlne- 
as  it  is  known  to  us,  suit  well  the  general  lingual  characteristics  of 
the  Semitics.     It  corresponds  to  their  peculiarity,  for  it  expresses 
their  inclination  to  gutturals,  and  the  variety  of  their  hissing  or  as 
pirated  sounds.     We  can,  therefore,  assert  with  high  probability  that 
its  inventor  was  a  Semitic." '     That  the  Israelites  possessed  alphabet 
ical  writing  when  they  went  down  into  Egypt  is  quite  evident,  oth 
erwise  they  would  have   adopted  the  hieroglyphic  system  of  the 

1  See  Wuttke,  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  u.  s.  w.,  vol.  i,  p.  557. 

2  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  ii,  p.  98. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  176.  4  Ibid.,  p.  178. 

6  Wuttke,  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  u.  s.  w.,  vol.  i,  p.  720. 


100  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Egyptians.1  The  Phoenicians,  who  lived  on  the  borders  of  Canaan, 
and  whose  language  was  nearly  the  same  as  the  Hebrew,  possessed 
writing  at  a  very  remote  period.  They  attributed  the  invention  of 
their  alphabet  to  Taut,  their  world-god.  The  sacred  writings  of  the 
Phoenicians,  in  which  their  cosmogony,  the  history  of  their  gods  and 
heroes,  natural  events,  and  astronomical,  astrological,  and  psycho 
logical  doctrines  were  contained,  were  called  Taut-writings.  An 
tiquity  mentions  seven  such  writings.9 

Among  the  ancient  Phoenician  writers,  Mochus,  mentioned  by  Jo- 
sephus*  as  a  writer  of  Phoenician  history,  may  be  named.  Strabo 
states,  on  the  authority  of  the  very  learned  Posidonius,  that  Mochus 
lived  before  the  Trojan  war.4  There  was  a  very  ancient  tradition 
among  the  Greeks  that  Cadmus,  the  founder  of  Thebes,  brought  six 
teen  letters  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  into  Greece.6  On  this  point 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Herodotus,  who  states  that  "  the  Phoeni 
cians  who  came  with  Cadmus  brought  among  the  Greeks  learning 
and  letters.''  "I  myself,"  says  he,  "saw  the  letters  of  Cadmus  in 
the  temple  of  the  Ismenian  Apollo,  in  Boeotian  Thebes,  engraved 
upon  three  tripods.""  The  age  of  Cadmus  was  more  ancient  than 
that  of  Moses.  At  all  events  it  is  certain  that  the  Greek  alphabet 
was  derived  from  the  Phoenician.  The  letters  speak  for  themselves. 

Another  proof  of  the  great  antiquity  of  the  Phoenician,  or  Hebrew, 
Antiquity  of  the  a^PnaDet  *s  furnished  by  the  linguistic  researches  in  the 
an  of  writing  monuments  of  ancient  Italy.  Dr.  Mommsen  remarks  : 
"  We  must,  both  as  regards  Etruria  and  Latium,  carry 
back  the  commencement  of  the  art  of  writing  to  an  epoch  which  more 
closely  approximates  to  the  first  incidence  of  the  Egyptian  dog-star 
period  within  historical  times,  the  year  1322  B.  C.,  than  to  the  year 
776,  with  which  the  chronology  of  the  Olympiads  began  in  Greece. 
The  high  antiquity  of  the  art  of  writing  in  Rome  is  evinced  other 
wise  by  numerous  and  plain  indications."1  The  alphabet  came 
from  the  Phoenicians  through  the  Greeks.  Writing  in  Hindoostaa 
furnishes  another  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Semitic  alphabet. 
According  to  Max  Miiller,8  the  Vedas  were  written  B.  C.  1200  or 
1500.  And  it  has  been  shown,  upon  the  firm  ground  of  palseog- 

1  Wuttke,  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  u.  s.  w.,  vol.  i,  p.  723. 

9  Fiirst,  Geschichte  Bib.  Lit.,  vol.  i,  p.  43.       3Antiq.,  i,  18.        4  Lib.  xvii,  757. 

5  So  ancient  was  alphabetical  writing  considered  to  be,  that  it  is  attributed  by 
J^schylus  (B.  C.  450)  to  the  god  Prometheus  (Prom.  Desm.,  460). 

6  Lib.  v,  cap.  58.     He  also  states  that  one  of  the  tripods  contained  the  inscrip 
tion:   "Amphitryon,  returning  from  the  Teleboans,  dedicated  me."     This  would 
be  in  the  time  of  Laius,  the  fourth  in  descent  from  Cadmus. 

1  History  of  Rome  (translated  by  Dickson),  vol.  i,  p.  224. 
8  Lectures  on  the  Vedas,  vol.  i,  p.  13. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  1U1 

raphy,  by  A.  Weber,  of  Berlin,  that  the  ancient  Hindoo  alphabet 
was  derived  from  the  Semitic  or  Phoenician. 

A  proof  of  the  existence  of  writing  among  the  Canaanites,  and 
consequently  among  the  Hebrews  before  the  Mosaic  Age,  is  the  fact 
that  when  Joshua  subdued  the  land  of  Canaan  he  found  a  city  there 
called  "i3D  rvn£  (Kirjath-sepher),  city  of  the  book  or  books*  That  the 
Israelites  made  use  of  writing  in  Egypt  is  shown  by  their  officers 
being  called  D^Dty  (shoterim),  scribes  (Exod.  v,  6-19),  from  *\Qiff 
(shatar),  to  write.  And  in  various  places  in  the  Pentateuch  writing  is 
mentioned  as  practised  by  the  Hebrews  in  the  Mosaic  age. 

We  may  further  remark  that  it  is  now  generally  conceded  that 
writing  among  the  Semitics  dates  as  far  back  as  B.  C.  2000. 

Writing  material  was  abundant  in  Egypt  in  the  Mosaic  age.  When 
the  pyramid  of  Cheops  was  built  papyri  were  used  as  Arto{ writin 
writing  material ; a  they  were  made  from  a  plant  that  inEgyptmthe 
grew  in  lower  Egypt.  The  papyrus  employed  for  sacred  B 
writings  was  about  thirteen  inches  wide ;  the  length  was  from  a  few 
inches  to  twenty,  thirty,  and  even  sixty  feet.  One  piece  in  the 
Museum  of  Turin  is  fifty-seven  feet  long,  and  another  measures 
one  hundred  and  forty-four  feet.3  Skins  of  animals  were  also  used 
for  writing  at  a  very  early  period  in  Egypt.4  "  Records  kept  in  the 
temple,"  written  upon  skins,  are  mentioned  in  the  time  of  the  eight 
eenth  dynasty,  the  age  of  Moses. 

As  numerous  allusions  are  made  in  the  Pentateuch  to  embroidery, 
engraving  on  stone,  and  working  in  brass,  silver,  and  gold,  it  is  a 
matter  of  great  importance  to  ascertain  from  other  sources  what 
was  the  condition  of  the  sciences  and  arts  in  Egypt  before  and  dur 
ing  the  time  of  Moses. 

Astronomy  and  mathematics  were  cultivated  by  the  Egyptians  at 
a  very  remote  period.  The  Egyptian  priests  devoted  g^^^  and 
themselves  ardently  to  astronomy,  and  computed  the  arts  in  ancient 
length  of  the  solar  year  with  approximate  correctness. 
According  to  Biot's  investigations,  they  made,  upon  accurate  exam 
ination,  a  reform  of  their  calendar  about  B.  C.  1780.  Moiris,  or 
Mares,  a  king  of  the  twelfth  dynasty  (about  B.  C.  2000),  is  said  to 
have  been  the  founder  of  geometry.  The  mathematical  knowledge 
of  the  ancient  Egyptians  was  transferred  to  the  Greeks  through 
Thales,  Pythagoras,  and  Democritus,  who  were  disciples  of  Egyp 
tian  priests.6  Even  when  the  pyramid  of  Cheops  was  built,  the 
decimal  system  was  in  use. 

1  Josh,  xv,  15,  16. 

*  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  ii,  p.  98. 

8  Wuttke,  vol.  i,  p.  533.     4  Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  99.     6  Wuttke,  vol.  i,  pp.  568,  569. 


102  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Gold  wire  was  employed  B.  C.  2000,  and  silver  wire  probably  at 
the  same  time,  certainly  not  more  than  five  hundred  years  later.  The 
ornaments  in  gold  found  in  Egypt  consist  of  rings,  bracelets,  armlets, 
necklaces,  earrings,  and  numerous  trinkets  belonging  to  the  toilet, 
many  of  which  are  of  the  time  of  Osirtasen  I.  and  Thothmes  III., 
who  lived  about  B.  C.  2080  and  1460.  Gold  and  silver  vases,  statues, 
and  other  objects  of  gold  and  silver,  of  silver  inlaid  with  gold,  and  of 
bionze  inlaid  with  the  precious  metals,  were  also  common  at  the 
same  time. J  Signet  rings  were  worn  as  early  as  the  Mosaic  age,  and 
even  earlier. 

Substances  of  various  kinds  were  overlaid  with  fine  gold  leaf  at  a 
very  early  period,  even  in  the  time  of  Osirtasen  I.,  about  B.  C.  2000. 
In  the  early  age  of  Thothmes  III.  (about  B.  C.  1460)  the  people 
were  already  acquainted  with  various  methods  of  overlaying  with  gold 
leaf,  gilding,  inlaying,  and  beating  gold  into  other  metals,  previously 
tooled  with  devices  to  receive  it.8  The  art  of  cutting  glass  was 
known  to  the  Egyptians  of  the  most  remote  periods,  hieroglyphics 
and  various  devices  being  frequently  engraved  upon  vases  and  beads. 
The  art  of  grinding  glass  was  known  and  practised.  For  engraving 
stone,  emery  powder  and  the  lapidary's  wheel  were  used.8  The 
Egyptians  manufactured  fine  linen  at  a  very  early  period.  Striped 
cloths  were  woven  in  Egypt  in  the  age  of  the  Pharaohs  of  the  twelfth 
(B.  C.  2000)  and  the  eighteenth  (about  B  C.  1460)  dynasties.  The 
Hiero  i  hies.  hier°gtyphics  on  obelisks  and  on  other  granitic  monu 
ments  are  sculptured  with  a  minuteness  and  finish  which 
are  surprising,  even  if  steel  as  highly  tempered  as  our  own  had  been 
used.  The  hieroglyphics  on  the  obelisks  are  rather  engraved  than 
sculptured;  and,  judging  from  the  minute  manner  in  which  they  are 
executed,  we  may  suppose  the  Egyptians  adopted  the  same  process  as 
modern  engravers,  and  that  they  even,  in  some  instances,  employed 
the  wheel  and  drill.4  Mirrors  of  metal,  chiefly  copper,  were  used  by 
them. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  this  part  of  our  subject  any  further. 
Enough  has  already  been  said  to  show  that  the  statements  of  the 
Pentateuch  respecting  the  arts  employed  by  the  Israelites  in  build 
ing  the  tabernacle,  in  making  its  utensils,  and  in  adorning  the  priests, 
together  with  the  allusions  made  to  gold  and  other  ornaments,  are 
natural  and  credible,  unless  one  can  suppose  that  the  Israelites,  al 
though  dwelling  in  close  proximity  to  the  Egyptians  for  centuries, 
never  learned  any  of  their  arts,  and  that  no  Egyptian  artist  ever 
appeared  among  them. 
1  Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  140.  2  Ibid.,  p.  145.  8  Ibid.,  p.  67.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  156,  157. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES  103 


CHAPTER  X. 

PROOF    OF    THE    GREAT    ANTIQUITY     OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 
FROM   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  THAT  NO  PART  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  COULD 
HAVE  BEEN  WRITTEN  DURING  OR  AFTER  THE  BABYLONIAN 
CAPTIVITY. 

'"PHAT  the  Hebrew  language  would  undergo  no  change  in  its 
vocabulary  and  syntax  in  nine  or  ten  centuries,  from  the  age  of 
Moses  to  the  Babylonian  captivity,  is  very  improbable,  Probability  of 
and  unless  we  ignore  all  the  teachings  of  history  in  sim- 
ilar  cases  it  is  certain  on  a  priori  grounds  that  the  Hebrew 
language  would  be  affected  by  coming  into  contact  with  the  Chal- 
dee  during  the  Babylonian  captivity.  We  accordingly  find  that 
in  many  instances  the  later  Hebrew  differs  from  the  earlier,  that 
the  language  of  all  the  writers  who  lived  during  or  after  the 
Babylonian  captivity  is  colored  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  by  the 
Chaldee ;  and  that  the  writers  themselves  give  unmistakable  evi 
dence  of  the  age  to  which  they  belong.  In  proof  and  illustration 
of  these  statements  we  cite  the  following  words :  3'3N,  Abib,  is  used 
in  Exod.  ix,  31,  and  in  Lev.  ii,  14,  for  green  ears.  Four  times  in 
Exodus  and  twice  in  Deuteronomv  it  takes  the  article  with  isnn, 

V 

hhodesh  (month)  prefixed,  3'hxn  Bnn,  hhoaesh  haabib,  month  of  Abib 
or  greenness.  The  fact  that  Abib  takes  the  article  is  a  proof  that  it  is 
not  a  proper  noun.  It  occurs  nowhere  except  in  the  passages 
named,  and  everywhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch  the  Hebrew  months 
are  indicated  simply  as  first,  second,  etc.  But  this  Abib,  the  first 
month  of  the  Hebrew  year,  is  called  jD'J,  Nisan,  in  Neh.  Later  lan- 
ii,  i  ;  Esth.  iii,  7  ;  and  in  other  books  composed  about  £5S  ln  "^ 
the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  we  have  the  proper  Pentateuch, 
names  of  some  of  the  months.  Thus,  in  i  Kings  vi,  i,  we  have 
"the  month  Ziv,  which  is  the  second  month,"  and  Ziv  in  verse  31. 
In  i  Kings  vi,  38,  mention  is  made  of  "  the  month  Bui,  which  is 
the  eighth  month."  In  Ezra  vi,  15,  and  in  several  passages  in 
Esther,  the  twelfth  month  is  called  Adar.  In  Zech.  i,  7,  the  elev 
enth  month  is  called  Shebat ;  and  in  vii,  i,  the  ninth  month  is 


104  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

named  Chisleu  ;  and  in  Neh.  vi,  15,  the  sixth  month  is  called  simply 
Elul.  The  most  of  these  proper  names  came  from  the  Chaldee. 

"UK,  azar,  to  bind,  and  "riTK,  ezor,  a  girdle,  are  found  in  later  books 
of  the  Bible,  but  nowhere  in  the  Pentateuch. 

D'JSTTK  and  fto2m,  darics,  the  name  of  a  Persian  coin  that 
came  into  use  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  is  found  in  several 
places  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Why  is  it  not  found  in  the  mid 
dle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  if  they  were  written  after  the 
captivity  ? 

nnx,  with  3  prefixed,  nnx3,  keehhadh,  as  one,  together,  occurs  three 

T    V  T    V    I 

times  in  Ezra,  and  once  in  each  of  the  books  of  2  Chronicles,  Ne 
hemiah,  Isaiah,  and  Ecclesiastes,  and  nowhere  else. 

B^jStf,  elgablsh,  hail,  occurs  three  times  in  Ezekiel,  and  nowhere 
else.  A  different  word  is  used  in  the  Pentateuch  and  other  biblical 
books. 

The  phrase  n&ytf  np1?,  laqahh  ishshah,  to  take  a  wife,  is  found  in 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Deuteronomy,  and  most  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  but  in  several  passages  in  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
2  Chronicles  the  phrase  HB?x  NfeU,  nasah  ishshah,  is  used.  It  is,  how 
ever,  not  used  in  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  difficult  to  think  that  if 
Leviticus  had  been  written  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  it 
would  not  have  contained  this  latter  phrase. 

"TO,  barar,  to  separate,  to  select,  to  choose,  and  to  be  pure,  occurs 
thirty-four  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  generally  in  the  later  books, 
but  never  in  the  Pentateuch. 

PITS,  birah,  fortress,  palace,  or  temple,  is  not  found  in  the  Penta 
teuch,  but  occurs  in  some  of  the  books  written  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity. 

r\3,  bath,  liquid  measure,  one  tenth  of  a  homer,  and  equal  to  the 
ephah  in  dry  measure,  is  nowhere  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
appears  to  be  of  late  origin.  It  occurs  once  in  Isaiah,  several 
times  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  seven  times  in  Ezekiel,  and  twice 
in  the  Chaldee  of  Ezra,  irty,  omer,  the  tenth  of  an  ephah,  occurs 
ten  times  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  nowhere  else.  IDn,  homer,  a  meas 
ure  containing  ten  baths,  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch,  Hosea,  and 
Ezekiel,  while  *O,  kor,  the  same  measure,  is  never  used  in  the  Pen 
tateuch,  but  occurs  several  times  in  i  Kings  and  2  Chronicles,  and 
once  in  Ezekiel.  Had  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  been 
written  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel  or  Ezra,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  the  word  bath,  and  very  likely  also  the  word  kor^ 
would  have  been  found  in  them. 


OF    THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  105 

SK^,  to  be  defiled,  to  be  polluted,  occurs  in  Isaiah,  Zephaniah,  Lam 
entations,  Malachi,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  but  nowhere  in  the  Pen 
tateuch.  It  is  evidently  late  Hebrew. 

Vj,  to  exult,  occurs  forty-four  times  in  the  late  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  never  in  the  Pentateuch.  :*n,  to  fear,  and  ruxi, 
fear,  are  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  i  Samuel,  Joshua, 
Psalms,  Jeremiah,  Proverbs,  and  three  times  in  Ezekiel. 

*v:n  is  used  j£/<fc<?#  times  in  the  books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  and 
once  in  the  Psalms  for  the  holy  of  holies  of  the  Jewish  temple.  Now,  it 
is  very  probable  that  if  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  had  been 
written  during,  or  after,  the  Babylonian  captivity,  they  would  have 
contained  this  word,  applied  to  the  most  holy  place  of  the  tabernacle. 

pn,  watch  tower,  is  used  in  2  Kings,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  and 
nowhere  else. 

n;n,  to  murmur,  and  its  derivatives  are  used  thirty-five  times  in 

the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  never  in  the  Pentateuch. 

jDT,  to  appoint,  is  used  twice  in  Nehemiah  and  once  in  the  Hebrew 
portion  of  Ezra ;  and  JDT,  time,  occurs  once  in  Nehemiah,  and  in 
Ecclesiastes  and  Esther.  They  are  not  found  until  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  and  doubtless  came  from  the  Chaldee. 

101,  to  play,  to  sing,  is  used  more  than  forty  times,  but  not  in  the 
Pentateuch.  PUT,  to  be  rancid,  occurs  nineteen  times,  but  is  never 
used  in  the  Pentateuch. 

}n,  palate,  occurs  eighteen  times  in  various  books,  including 
Ezekiel. 

DDH,  to  do  violence,  is  found  in  several  late  books,  but  neither 
word  is  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 

niNDtfn  nirr,  Jehovah  of  hosts,  or  Jehovah  God  of  hosts,  is  not  found 
in  the  Pentateuch,  though  it  occurs  in  Jeremiah,  Zechariah,  Mal 
achi,  and  especially  in  Isaiah. 

"f^nn,  to  be  in  a  genealogical  table,  is  found  only  in  Num.  i,  18. 
Instead  of  this  word,  frn^n  is  used  twenty  times  in  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
and  in  i  and  2  Chronicles. 

3jni),  a  writing,  or  book,  or  prescript,  is  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch, 

but  occurs  as  Hebrew  three  times  in  Chronicles,  four  times  in  Ezra, 

once  in  Nehemiah,  and  once  in  Ezekiel.     It  evidently,  at  the  cap- 

*    tivity,  came  from  the  Chaldee,  which  has  a  very  similar  form  (2n3). 

"ND3,  a  cup  occurs  in  several  places  in  Ezra  and  in  i  Chronicles, 
but  not  in  the  Pentateuch. 


106  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Y33,  a  young  lion,  is  found  thirty-one  times  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  in  no  case  in  the  Pentateuch. 

D'DS,  secret  arts,  magic  arts  (Exod.  vii,  22;  viii,  3,  14),  and  Q'tpnS, 
magic  arts  (Exod.  vii,  u),  are  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible  in 
this  sense,  except  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  the  later  books  different 
words  are  used. 

D'Jan  DnS,  shou>  bread,  is  employed  in  Exod.  xxxv,  13  ;  xxxix,  36, 
and  without  the  article  in  xxv,  30.  The  same  name  also  is  found 
in  other  books.  But  this  bread  is  called  twice  in  Chronicles  and 
once  in  Nehemiah  TCry  •  n  on"?,  bread  of  the  rout,  row  bread. 

v  :—. 

n^JD,  a  roll  of  a  book,  occurs  twenty-one  times  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  including  four  times  in  Ezekiel,  but  not  in  the  Pentateuch. 
n£)3¥D,  turban,  mitre,  in  found  eleven  times  in  Exodus  and  once 

v  v :  • 

in  Ezekiel,  but  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  some  of 
the  later  books  ^M  is  used  in  the  same  sense. 

DTO,  high  place,  occurs  more  than  fifty  times  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  but  nowhere  in  the  Pentateuch.  It  seems  to  have  corc* 
into  use  first  when  the  Israelites  occupied  Jerusalem  and  other 
high  places. 

"VJ3,  prince,  leader,  etc.,  is  not  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  occurs/tfr/y- 
two  times  elsewhere,  being  found  in  Samuel,  Kings,  Job,  Proverbs, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Psalms,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  and  Daniel. 

I'JJ,  in  Ezra  iii,  i  ;  Neh.  vii,  73  ;  Hiphil  in  Ezek.  vii,  12,  has  the 
singular  meaning,  to  come. 

D'J'HJ,  servants  of  the  tabernacle,  or  temple,  given  to  the  Levites 
to  aid  them,  occurs  eight  times  in  Ezra,  nine  times  in  Nehemiah, 
and  once  in  i  Chronicles.  If  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
had  been  written  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  this  word  would  have 
been  used  to  designate  the  servants  of  the  Levites. 

n^DD,  found  only  in  the  following  form  construct  plural : 

ni'^rjp,  burdens,  a  bearing  of  burdens,  six  times  in  Exodus,  ana  no 
where  else.  Outside  of  the  Pentateuch  different  words  are  used 
for  burdens,  Ssb  and  S3D. 

V  " 

pD,  or  }ip,  prefect,  ruler,  governor,  is  not  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Nehemiah,  and  Ezra,  it  is  used  for  chief 
officers  among  the  Hebrews,  just  as  N'b:,  prince,  is  used  in  the  mid 
dle  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Why,  then,  does  not  this  late  word  oc 
cur  in  the  Pentateuch,  if  it  belongs,  in  large  part,  to  the  time  of  Ezra? 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  107 

J^SH,  or  yhoy  Sela  Petra  (the  Rock),  is  found  in  Judges  i,  36  ; 
2  Kings  xiv,  17;  Isaiah  xvi,  i,  and  perhaps  xlii,  n,for  the  well 
known  Idumean  city  Petra,  but  it  is  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Is  not  this  because  the  city  had  no  existence  when  the  Pentateuch 
was  written  ? 

•yp,  to  scatter  and  to  shake,  and  its  noun,  rnyp  and  1JTO,  storm,  are 

not  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  some  of  its  forms  occur  in  Kings, 
Hosea,  Amos,  Isaiah,  Psalms,  Habakkuk,  Ezekiel.,  Zechariah,  and 
Jonah. 

13D,  king's  scribe  or  secretary,  also  military  tribune,  and  in  Chron 
icles,  Jeremiah,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  it  has  the  meaning  of  scribe, 
one  skilled  in  the  law  of  Moses ;  but  this  participle  does  not  occur 
in  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  the  word  "Mitf  (from  "U3P,  to  write], 
officer,  leader,  magistrate,  thirteen  times. 

"W,  to  gird,  occurs  eighty-two  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  in 
the  Pentateuch  only  twice,  in  the  poetical  chapters,  Gen.  xlix  and 
Deut.  xxxii. 

"W,  omer,  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah,  occurs  ten  times  in  the  Penta 
teuch,  and  nowhere  else. 

3"W,  Arabia,  and  "l^V,  an  Arabian,  are  not  found  in  the  Penta 
teuch.  But  the  name  of  the  country  occurs  in  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
2  Chronicles,  while  the  name  of  the  people  occurs  also  in  Isaiah, 
2  Chronicles,  and  in  Jeremiah  and  Nehemiah.  Now,  as  the  history 
in  the  Pentateuch  deals  in  genealogies  and  Gentile  names,  and 
as  the  largest  portion  of  its  history  is  transacted  in  Arabia,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  if  any  large  historical  part  of  the  work  had 
been  written  near  the  period  of  the  captivity  it  would  have  con 
tained  both  the  names  for  Arabia  and  Arab. 

Btoa,  to  act  proudly,  to  scatter,  does  not  occur  in  the  Pentateuch, 
but  in  Jeremiah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  and  Malachi. 

Tfl,  pure  gold,  is  found  in  several  late  books,  but  not  in  the  Penta 
teuch. 

nns,  governor,  is  found  eleven  times  in  Nehemiah,  seven  times  in 
Ezra,  and  also  in  Kings,  Malachi,  Ezekiel,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  and 
Esther.  If  any  considerable  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  had  been 
written  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  is  it  not  likely 
that  this  word  would  have  been  found  in  it? 

"P3,  a  male  mule,  is  found  fifteen  times  in  the  books  of  2  Samuel, 
i  and  2  Kings,  i  and  2  Chronicles,  Isaiah,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Psalms,  rrna,  a  she  mule,  is  found  three  times  in  i  Kings.  But 
neither  of  these  words  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch.  Is  it  not,  then,  in 


108  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  highest  degree  probable  that  this  hybrid  had  no  existence  when 
the  Pentateuch  was  written,  or,  at  least,  was  not  known  in  the  regions 
of  Egypt l  and  Palestine  ? 

'3¥,  beauty,  splendor,  is  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  occurs  in 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  2  Samuel,  and  Daniel. 

pny,  tsahhaq,  to  laugh,  to  make  sport  of,  occurs  twelve  times  in 
Genesis,  once  in  Exodus,  once  in  Judges,  and  once  in  Ezekiel,  but 
nowhere  else.  Instead  of  this  the  later  writers  use  a  word  easier 
to  pronounce,  pJTtf,  sahhaq,  the  ¥  (ts)  being  exchanged  for  V  (s). 

pyjf,  tsa'aq,  to  cry  out,  is  found  seventy-two  times  in  the  Old  Test 
ament.  Of  these. instances  twenty-six  are  in  the  Pentateuch; 
the  other  form,  p>T,  za'aq  (the  initial  letter  of  which  is  more  easily 
pronounced),  is  used  instead  of  ppjf  in  the  Pentateuch  only  twice, 
but  in  the  later  books  eighty-nine  times. 

T3y,  a  he  goat,  is  used  in  the  Hebrew  portion  of  Ezra  as  well  as 
in  the  Chaldee,  in  2  Chron.  xxix,  21,  and  in  Daniel.  It  is  found 
nowhere  else.  But  in  the  Pentateuch  "HAP  and  TJJ'SP  are  used  for  he 
goat ;  the  latter  word  for  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering  in  Lev.  ix,  3, 
etc.,  in  the  same  sense  that  Ezra  uses  T3V.  If  Ezra  wrote  the  mid 
dle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  how  is  it  that  he  did  not  insert  for  he 
goat  the  word  which  he  uses  in  his  own  book  ? 

S3£,  to  receive,  is  found  in  Ezra,  Proverbs,  Job,  Chronicles,  and 
Esther,  but  not  in  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  evidently  from  the  Chaldee. 

nnp  to  be  dull,  to  be  blunted,  is  found  only  in  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 

and  Ecclesiastes. 

pp,    to  lament,   and  nrp,  lamentation,  is    found    several  times  in 

Ezekiel  and  in  some  other  books,  but  nowhere  in  the  Pentateuch. 
J^p,  a  curtain,  occurs  eleven  times  in    Exodus,  and   twice   in 

Numbers,  but  nowhere  else. 

?wf, to  listen^  Kal  conjugation,  Isaiah  xxxii,  3,  and  Hiphil,  to  at 
tend,  to  hearken,  occurs  seven  times  in  Isaiah,  seven  times  in  Jeremiah, 
once  in  Hosea,  once  in  Micah,  twice  in  Zechariah,  six  times  in  the 
Psalms,  eight  times  in  Proverbs,  twice  in  Chronicles,  once  in  Malachi, 
once  in  Nehemiah,  twice  in  Job,  once  in  i  Samuel,  once  in  Canticles, 
and  once  in  Daniel.  Now,  as  the  precept  to  hearken,  to  give  heed, 
occurs  often  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  proba 
ble  that  if  any  considerable  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  had  been 
written  in  the  period  B.  C.  700-400,  it  would  have  contained  this 

1  A  painting  on  an  Egyptian  tomb  in  the  time  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty  repre 
sents  two  white  mules.  Wilkinson's  Egypt,  by  Birch,  vol.  i,  p.  237. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  109 

Clearly,  the  word  came  into  use  after  the  Pentateuch  was 
written. 

D>l?:n,  plural  of  Sn,  footy  signifies  times  in  Exod.  xxiii,  14;  Num. 

•  T    ;  V  V 

xxii,  28,  32,  and  nowhere  else.  The  wcrd  in  general  use  to  ex 
press  times,  is  D'pi?3,  (beats). 

ptfty,  and  ptfiP,  to  be  secure,  careless,  are  not  in  the  Pentateuch, 
but  are  found  in  eight  of  the  later  books. 

^Ntf,  to  gape  after,  is  not  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  several  of  the 

later  books. 

~WD,  leaven,  is  found  only  in  the  Pentateuch. 

H3327,  effusion,  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch  alone. 

KVtf  is  used  six  times  in  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy,  in  the  sense 
of  falsehood — the  only  books  of  the  Pentateuch  in  which  it  occurs  ; 
but  in  the  later  books  it  also  occurs  in  the  sense  of  vanity. 

TDBf,  in  the  sense  diamond,  occurs  in  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
Zechariah,  but  not  in  the  Pentateuch. 

W$,fine  cotton,  the  Egytian  shensh,  is  found  twenty-two  times  in 
the  Pentateuch,  and  elsewhere  but  seven  times.  For  this  material, 
f!3,  byssus,  is  used  in  Ezek.  xxvii,  16,  four  times  in  the  Book  of 
Chronicles,  and  twice  in  Esther,  but  never  in  the  Pentateuch.  The 
word  is  of  Aramaean  and  late  origin.  Had  the  middle  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  been  written  after  the  captivity,  it  would  certainly  have 
contained  this  word. 

Ninn,  a  coat  of  mail,  occurs  only  in  Exod.  xxviii,  32  ;  xxxix,  23. 
In  the  later  books  a  different  word,  p'^ty,  or  pity,  occurring  eight 
times,  is  used,  and  rpity  in  the  Book  of  Job. 

On  the  use  of  S,  with  nouns  after  verbs,  Gesenius  remarks :  "  Some- 

: 

times  Hebrew  writers,  especially  the  later  ones,  who  inclined  to 
Chaldaism,  employ  S  (the  sign  of  the  dative)  incorrectly  after 
active  verbs  for  the  accusative,  as  in  Chaldee,  Syriac,  and  Ethiopic  ; 
for  example,  *7  npS,  Jer.  xl,  20  ;  h  ^DN,  Lam.  iv,  5  ;  h  :nn,  Job  v,  2  ; 
compare  i  Chron.  xvi,  37  ;  xxv,  i ;  Psa.  cxxxv,  u,  etc.  [where  the 
same  construction  occurs].  Of  such  construction  we  know  nothing 
in  the  Pentateuch. 

nxp,  a  hundred,  in  its  regular  position  stands  before  the  noun  in 
the  singular,  as,  T\W  HN73,  a  hundred  year  (for  years).  "Rarely,  and 
only  in  the  later  books,  is  n«p  put  after  a  noun  plural,  as  nxp  D'MEn, 
2  Chron.  iii,  16  ;  compare  iv,  8;  Ezra  ii,  69;  viii,  26,"  [in  which 
the  same  construction  is  found]. 


110  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

rrs.  a  cubit,  is  placed  after  numbers  above  ten  in  the  earlier  He 
brew,  but  in  the  later  we  have  also  the  plural  cubits  after  large  num 
bers,  as  Ezek.  xlii,  2  ;  2  Chron.  iii,  4.' 

In  Ezekiel  we  find  Chaldee  plurals,  j'BH,  wheat  (iv,  9),  j"X,  islands 
(xxvi,  18) ;  Chaldee  infinitives,  as  isnjB  rriK&D  (xxxvi,  5;  xvii,  9). 

In  Jeremiah  there  is  one  verse  in  Chaldee,  and  in  Ezra  there  are 
whole  sections  in  the  same  language. 

Taking  into  consideration  all  the  peculiarities  that  distinguish 

conclusions   the   Pentateuch   from  the  books  of  the  Bible  written 

the  Pentateuch 

could  not  have  during  or  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  it  seems  to  us 

SuringorSer  clearl>T  impossible  that  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
the  captivity,  could  have  been  written  during  either  of  those  periods. 
In  this  view  we  have  the  support  of  the  great  Hebrew  lexicogra 
pher,  Gesenius,  who  belonged  to  the  rationalistic  school.  In  the 
last  edition  a  of  his  Hebrew  Grammar,  published  a  short  time  before 
his  death,  he  remarks :  "  The  Old  Testament  writings  which  belong 
to  this  second  period,  B.  C.  536-160,  and  in  all  of  which  this  Chal 
dee  coloring  appears,  although  in  different  degrees,  are,  the  books 
of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther;  the  prophetical  books 
Gesenius  in  of  Jonah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi;  of  the  poetic 
eariy^iginof  books»  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  the  later 
Pentateuch.  Psalms."3  "  In  the  Book  of  Job,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel 
are  found  decided  approaches  to  the  Chaldaizing  language  of -the 
[this]  second  period."  *  He  places  the  Pentateuch  in  the  first  period 
of  Hebrew  literature.6 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  THAT   THE  PENTATEUCH  IS  OLDER  THAN  ANY 
OTHER    PART    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  a  considerable  part  of  the  linguistic 
arguments  that  we  adduced  indicated  not  only  that  no  portion  of 
the  Pentateuch  could  be  of  as  late  origin  as  the  Babylonian  captiv 
ity,  but  also  that  the  Pentateuch  is  older  than  any  other  part  of  the 
Old  Testament.  That  this  is  really  the  case  can  be  made  clear 
from  the  archaisms  that  pervade  the  whole  Pentateuch. 

The  pronoun  Kin,  hu  (he),  throughout  the  Pentateuch  is  used  as 
Archaisms  in  common  gender,  and  occurs  one  hundred  and  ninety- 
p^v^nMte'ear-  seven  times  as  feminine,  she  or  //.  It  is  used  for  the 
iy  origin.  feminine  fifty-seven  times  in  Genesis,  eleven  times  in 
Exodus,  sixty-six  times  in  Leviticus,  twenty-seven  times  in  Num- 

1  See  Gesenius,  sub  voc.,  HteK^  8  Thirteenth,  published  at  Leipzig,  1842. 

•Ibid.,  p.  9,  German  edition.  4  Ibid.,  p.  8. 

6  Ibid.  p.  7.     We  shall  give  his  views  on  the  Pentateuch  more  fully  hereafter. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  Ill 

bers,  and  thirty-six  times  in  Deuteronomy.1  The  feminine  pronoun 
for  she  is  N'H,  hL  This  latter  form  is  everywhere  used  in  the  He 
brew  Bible  for  the  feminine,2  except  in  the  Pentateuch,  where  it 
occurs  only  eleven  times,  its  place  being  supplied,  as  we  have  al 
ready  stated,  by  the  masculine  Kin,  hu.  The  feminine  form,  N'n,  hi, 
occurs  three  times  in  Genesis,  in  Exodus  not  at  all,  six  times  in 
Leviticus,  twice  in  numbers,  and  not  once  in  Deuteronomy.  The 
feminine  form,  NTI,  hi,  occurs  twenty-nine  times  in  Joshua,  but  Kin, 
hu,  never  as  feminine.  In  the  Book  of  Judges,  K'H,  hi,  feminine, 
occurs  twenty-two  times,  but  wn,  hu,  never  as  feminine.  The  Chal- 
dee,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  have  distinct  forms.3  "7K,  these,  occurs  at 
least  eight  times  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  nowhere  else  except  in 
i  Chron.  xx,  8,  taken,  doubtless,  from  the  Pentateuch,  ni^n,  this, 
occurs  twice  in  Genesis  only. 

The  Hebrew  word  for  boy  is  "UN,  naar ;  feminine  rnjN,  naarah, 
girl.  The  masculine,  "UN,  naar,  is  used  for  the  feminine  twenty-one 
times  in  the  Pentateuch,  eight  times  of  them  being  in  Genesis,  and 
thirteen  in  Deuteronomy.  The  feminine  form,  mjN,  naarah,  occurs 
but  once  in  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  that  in  Deuteronomy.  Out 
side  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  masculine  singular  is  never  used  for 
the  feminine.  The  masculine  plural,  Q'lJN,  is  thought  to  be  used  for 
the  feminine  in  Ruth  ii,  21  (Gesenius  and  Fiirst) ;  and  to  include 
young  men  and  maidens,  in  Job  i,  19. 

ptf,  as  a  verb,  to  creep,  or,  as  a  noun,  ptf,  a  creeping  thing,  occurs 
twenty-six  times  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  is  distributed  through  all 
the  books,  except  Numbers.  Elsewhere  it  occurs  but  twice,  once 
in  Psalm  cv,  30,  as  an  indirect  quotation,  in  speaking  of  the  plagues 

1  We  have  carefully  counted  these  instances  from  personal  inspection.  The 
number  is  greater  than  we  made  it  in  first  edition. 

3  Gesenius  (Heb.  Lex.)  remarks  that  K1H,  hu,  is  used  for  the  feminine  in  three 
passages  outside  of  the  Peutateuch,  namely,  i  Kings  xvii,  15  ;  Job  xxxi,  n  ;  Isa. 
xxx,  33.  But  these  passages  do  not  really  form  an  exception  to  our  statement, 
since  in  the  first  passage  the  Hebrew  is  evidently  transposed:  fc^rfl  Kin  /OXJYI, 
she  and  he  did  eat.  The  Massora  has  corrected  this  by  putting  the  feminine  form 
first  and  the  masculine  second  in  the  margin  to  be  read.  The  passage  in  Job  is 
jiy  fcOn  ni3t  MH.  Here  the  masculine  pronoun  is  used  with  a  feminine  noun,  and 
a  feminine  pronoun  with  a  masculine  noun.  The  Massora  has  corrected  this  in 
the  margin,  and  properly  arranged  the  words.  The  Massora  regards  the  passage 
in  Isaiah  as  an  error,  and  has  corrected  it  in  the  margin. 

"The  same  as  in  Chaldee  tfin,  hu,  »VJ,  hi;  Syriac,  $07,  hu,  **,  hi;  Arabic, 
kowa,  (J^,  hia,  he,  she. 


112  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

of  Egypt,  and  once  in  Ezek.  xlvii,  9,  which  seems  to  be  taken  from 
Genesis.  ntfN»  burnt  offering,  sacrifice,  is  found  nearly  fifty  times  in 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  but  nowhere  else.  Its  plural  is 
used  sixteen  times,  and  almost  entirely  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers. 
Out  of  the  Pentateuch  it  occurs  but  twice.  3BG,  for  feos,  a  lamb, 

•f  v7 

occurs  thirteen  times  in  all  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  except 
Numbers.  Elsewhere  it  does  not  occur.  The  feminine  form,  H3#3, 
is  found  once  in  Leviticus.  ^riJ,  a  young  bird,  occurs  nowhere  in 
the  Bible,  except  once  in  Genesis  and  once  in  Deuteronomy.  IOT,  for 
male,  occurs  only  in  Exod.  xxiii,  17;  xxxiv,  23,  and  Deut.  xvi,  16; 
xx,  13.  In  the  first  three  passages  the  word  occurs  in  the  command 
that  all  the  males  should  appear  three  times  a  year  before  Jehovah, 
but  in  the  last  passage  the  subject  is  entirely  different,  and  shows 
that  the  Deuteronomist  was  not  using  the  word,  though  antiquated, 
merely  because  he  was  repeating  the  words  of  an  old  law.  DJp'n,  a 
living  thing,  is  found  twice  in  Genesis  and  once  in  Deuteronomy, 
and  nowhere  else.  «"l2pJ,  female,  is  found  twenty-one  times  in  all 
the  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  except  Exodus.  Elsewhere  it  is 
met  with  but  once,  in  Jeremiah.  HJD,  thorn  bush,  occurs  four  times 

VI 

in  Exodus  and  once  in  Deuteronomy,  and  nowhere  else.  fBjpTK  *)D&U, 
to  be  gathered  to  one's  people,  occurs  in  Genesis,  Numbers,  and  in 
Deuteronomy.  Elsewhere  it  is  not  found.1 

Some  of  the  most  important  of  these  archaisms  occur  in  those 
Archaisms  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  regarded  by  the  impugners  of 
o^the^enta-  ^ts  genuineness  as  the  most  recent,  as  well  as  in  those 
teuch  claimed  portions  acknowledged  to  be  primitive. 
cSstoTthe  "  The  Pentateuch,"  says  Gesenius, "certainly  contains 
most  recent.  some  linguistic  peculiarities  which  have  the  appearance 
of  archaisms.  The  words  wn,  he,  and  "ty),  young  man,  are  still  com 
mon  gender,  and  stand  also  for  she,  young  woman  (about  as  the  old 
[German]  Gemahl  (husband)  for  Gemahlin  (wife)  ;  and  certain 
harder  forms,"2)  etc. 

Now,  it  may  be  asked,  In  what  way  do  those  who  deny  the  unity 
and  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  dispose  of  its  archaisms  ?  Bleek 
admits  them,  but  thinks  that  other  considerations  outweigh  them.3 
But  we  regard  such  archaisms  as  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch  to  be  an 
irresistible  proof  that  the  entire  Pentateuch  is  older  than  any  other 

1  A  very  similar  phrase  occurs  in  Judg.  ii,  10,  and  2  Kings  xxii,  20 :  "  to  gather 
one  to  his  fathers" 

8  Thirteenth  edition  of  his  Hebrew  Grammar.     Leipzig,  1842,  pp.  7,  8. 
3Einleitung,  pp.  341,  342. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  113 

portion  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  also  a  probable  proof  of  the 
unity  of  the  whole  of  it.  Schrader,  in  his  additions  to  The  Ration- 
De  Wette's  Introduction,1  attributes  them  to  "a  revision  ^f  oftre^T 
of  the  text  for  the  sake  of  producing  uniformity."  This  chaisms. 
view  is  wholly  untenable.  A  revision  that  changes  usual  and  mod 
ern  forms  into  antiquated  ones  for  the  sake  of  uniformity  would  be 
unnatural.  For  the  natural  tendency  of  a  revision  is  to  change  the 
most  ancient  forms  into  modern  ones,  which  was  done  in  the  Samar 
itan  Pentateuch,  where  the  most  important  archaisms  were  changed 
into  modern  forms;  for  example,  h&  into  nSx;  "tt?J  in  every  instance 
into  n"\yj ;  Kin  into  N'n,  when  the  feminine  gender a  was  to  be 

indicated. 

Nor  can  we  believe  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  on  the  sup 
position  that  he  was  not  Moses,  but  belonged  to  a  quite  late  age, 
would  have  inserted  archaisms  in  order  to  make  the  work  uniform 
with  the  preceding  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  Deuteronomy  is 
written  in  a  spirit  so  free  and  independent  that  its  author  has  been 
charged  with  contradicting  the  statements  of  the  other  books;  cer 
tainly  he  does  not  slavishly  follow  them  by  giving  historical  events 
exactly  as  the  preceding  books  do ;  and  some  of  the  laws  of  the 
other  books  are  modified  in  this.  If  the  author  of  Deuteronomy 
did  not  conform  to  the  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  in  important 
matters,  why  should  he  have  accommodated  himself  to  them  in 
minor  ones,  that  is,  those  of  verbal  form  ? 

The  archaisms  of  the  Pentateuch  not  only  furnish  confirmatory 
proof  of  its  unity,  but  give  the  strongest  evidence  of  its  high  an 
tiquity,  showing  it  to  be  the  oldest  writing  of  the  Old  Test-  Archaisms 
ament — older  than  even  the  Book  of  Joshua.  For  wn,  provingunity. 
hu,  is  common  gender  all  through  the  Pentateuch,  meaning  he  or  she  ; 
but  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  the  distinct  feminine  form,  *rn,  hi,  she, 
is  invariably  used  for  the  feminine,  occurring  twenty-nine  times.8 
This  is  important,  for  it  separates  the  authorship  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua  from  that  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  some  deniers  of  the  gen- 
uineness  of  the  latter  refuse  to  do,  and  so  get  rid  of  the  important 
independent  testimony  furnished  by  the  Book  of  Joshua  to  the  Pen 
tateuch.  But  the  Book  of  Joshua  contains  internal  evidence  of 

1  P.  87,  Berlin,  1869. 

8  We  have  found  one  instance  in  which  the  old  form,  Kin,  is  allowed  to  stand 
for  the  feminine  ;  but  this  is  in  all  probability  a  mistake  of  some  transcriber. 
31VJ,  boy  or  girl,  in  the  Pentateuch,  occurs  but  once  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and 

as  masculine.    Joshua  had  but  little  need  of  it,  nor  does  the  feminine  form,  f 
occur  in  it. 
VOL.  L— -8 


114  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

having  been  written  before  the  reign  of  David,  for  it  is  stated 
(Josh,  xv,  63)  that  the  children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  out  the 
Jebusites  from  Jerusalem,  "  but  the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  chil 
dren  of  Judah  at  Jerusalem  unto  this  day;"  that  is,  when  the  book 
was  written.  But  David  drove  them  out  (2  Sam.  v,  6,  7).  The 
archaisms  of  the  Pentateuch  prove  something  more  than  its  high 
antiquity.  They  furnish  the  most  striking  proof  that  the  volume 
of  Moses  has  come  down  to  us  in  its  original  form. 

The  two  propositions  on  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch  which 
we  have  discussed  are  entirely  independent  of  its  use  and  authority. 
Had  it  been  buried  or  forgotten  from  the  time  of  Moses  until  Ezra, 
the  argument  for  its  antiquity  would  not  be  affected. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

THE  PROBABILITY  THAT  MOSES,  AS  LEGISLATOR,  WOULD 
HAVE  WRITTEN  HIS  LAWS,  AND  ALSO  THE  ANNALS  OF 
THE  HEBREWS. 

TT  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  Moses  was  the  great  legislator  of 
*•  the  Hebrews,  since  the  proof  is  so  strong  that  it  may  be  said  to 
have  hardly  ever  been  questioned.  All  the  writings  of  the  Jews,  and 
their  oldest  traditions,  agree  that  Moses  was  their  lawgiver;  and  the 
Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Romans  held  the  same  view.  Manetho,  an 
Egyptian  priest  of  Sebennytus,  a  man  of  great  erudition,  who  wrote 
in  Greek,  about  B.  C.  300,  the  Egyptian  History  from  their  sacred 
writings,  states  that  the  Israelites  left  Egypt  in  the  reign  of  Ameno- 
phis,  and  that  their  leader,  a  priest  of  Heliopolis,  by  name  Osarsi- 
phus — whose  name  was  changed  to  Moses  after  he  went  over  to  the 
Israelites — gave  them  laws,  for  the  most  part  contrary  to  the  customs 
of  Egypt,  enjoining  upon  them  not  to  worship  the  gods,  nor  to  ab 
stain  from  those  animals  held  sacred  in  Egypt,  but  to  sacrifice  and 
independent  slaughter  them  all.1  King  Amenophis  (Amunoph)  is 
testimony  con-  placed  by  Wilkinson  at  B.C.  1498-1478.  Manetho's 
eernin*  Moses.  History  of  the  Dynasties  has  been  remarkably  confirmed 
by  the  monuments  of  Egypt.  Strabo,  the  great  Greek  geographer 
(* about  B.  C.  65),  in  speaking  of  the  Jews,  remarks:  "Moses,  one 
of  the  Egyptian  priests,  possessing  a  part  of  Lower  Egypt,  left  there, 
being  disgusted  with  the  existing  institutions,  and  many,  honouring 
1  In  Josephus  against  Apion,  liber  i,  460,  461. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  115 

the  Divinity,  left  with  him.  For  he  said  and  taught  that  the  Egyp 
tians  have  not  just  conceptions  of  the  Divine  nature  in  representing 
it  by  beasts  and  cattle  ;  nor  have  the  Lybians ;  nor  have  the  Greeks 
who  represent  it  by  human  forms.  For  that  only  is  God  which  em 
braces  us  all,  both  land  and  sea."1 

The  Roman  satirist  Juvenal  (about  A.  D.  100)  speaks  of  "the 
law,  all  which  Moses  delivered  in  the  sacred  volume."3  "Moses," 
says  Tacitus,8  "  gave  the  Jewish  nation  new  rites  contrary  to  those 
of  other  men." 

Writing,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  extensively  practised  in 
Egypt  long  before  the  age  of  Moses.  The  oldest  of  the  sacred 
books  of  Thoth  were  composed  at  least  as  early  as  the  building  of 
the  great  pyramid.4  These  books  were  partly  of  a  religious  and 
partly  of  a  scientific  character ;  or,  rather,  they  constituted  a  system 
of  natural  and  revealed  theology.  They  passed  as  a  revelation. 
The  Egyptians  "  had  a  grand  code  of  laws  and  jurispru-  ^^  and  other 
dence,  known  as  the  celebrated  Eight  Books  of  Hermes  records  among 
(Thoth),  which  it  was  incumbent  on  those  high  priests 
called  *  prophets '  to  be  thoroughly  versed  in,  and  which  the  king, 
who  held  that  office,  was  also  required  and  entitled  to  know."5  The 
great  conqueror,  Sesostris,  published  laws  respecting  the  army.  The 
ancient  Mnevis  is  said  to  have  published  laws  which  he  pretended 
were  the  commands  of  Thoth.  The  proceedings  in  the  courts  were 
conducted  in  writing.  Near  the  judge  lay  the  eight  books  of  law ; 
the  plaintiff  was  compelled  to  present  his  demand  in  writing,  with  an 
exact  statement  of  the  attendant  facts.8  Contracts  were  made  in  writ 
ing  ;  also  terms  of  sale  and  service,  where  with  us  an  oral  agreement 
would  be  sufficient.  This  was  the  custom  in  the  time  of  the  eight 
eenth  dynasty,  B.  C.  1500.  The  priests  wrote  down  the  succession 
of  their  kings,  and  engraved  on  stone  the  pious  and  memorable  deeds 
of  their  ancestors.  They  also  wrote  annals  of  the  achievements  of 
their  kings,  and  preserved  them  in  the  archives  of  the  temples.  In 
structive  histories  from  their  annals  were  read  to  their  kings.  The 
priests  of  On  (Heliopolis)  enjoyed  the  reputation  of  having  the 
greatest  knowledge  of  history.7  The  number  of  books  possessed  by 
the  ancient  Egyptians  was  great.  Books  were  gathered  and  piled  up 
in  the  temples  and  in  the  graves  of  their  kings.  In  Memphis  there 
was  a  book  temple  in  the  sanctuary  of  Pthah.  In  Karnak,  on  the 

1  Liber  xvi,  760,  761. 

s  Jus  tradidit  arcano  quodcunque  volumine  Moses. — Liber  xiv,  IOT,  102. 

8  Hist.,  liber  v,  4.  4  Wuttke,  557. 

6  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of  Ancient  Egyptians,  etc.,  vol.  ii,  p.  226. 

•  Wuttke,  574,  575.  '  Wuttke,  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  u.  s.  w.,  p.  570. 


116  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

monument  of  Osymandoa,  the  great  King  Rameses  I.  (who,  accord 
ing  to  Seyffarth,  was  born  B.  C.  1730),  there  is  found  at  Tepe  a  con 
secrated  collection  of  books  with  the  superscription,  "  Institute  for 
the  Cure  of  Souls."  Champollion  discovered  a  library  hall,  the  ori 
gin  of  which  he  places  in  the  sixteenth  century  before  Christ. 

The  preserved  remains  of  the  written  monuments  of  Egypt  are  so 
numerous  that  they  surpass  in  number  those  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans.  They  consist  of  many  thousands  of  rolls  of  papyrus  and 
of  inscriptions  on  stone.  The  Arabian  physician  and  historian,  Ab- 
dallatif,  who  wrote  about  A.  D.  1200,  assures  us  in  his  Memorials  of 
Egypt,  that  if  one  could  translate  into  a  book  merely  the  writings 
found  on  the  two  largest  pyramids,  the  translation  would  fill  about 
ten  thousand  leaves.1 

With  the  foregoing  facts  before  us,  the  probability  is  strong  that 
probability  of  Moses  must  have  written  his  laws  for  the  Hebrews;  and 
wrfttenhSS-y  ^ie  supposition  is  reasonable  that  he  wrote  the  annals  of 
ana  law.  the  Hebrews  of  his  own  age,  and  of  the  age  of  his  ances 

tors.  There  is  no  ground  for  the  theory  of  those  rationalists  who 
hold  that  Moses  wrote  little  or  nothing.  We  have  already  seen  that, 
according  to  Manetho,  the  Egyptian  priest  and  historian,  Moses  was 
originally  a  priest  of  Heliopolis,  a  town  already  in  existence  about 
B.  C.  2000,  as  the  single  obelisk  standing  in  the  center  of  the  ruins 
of  the  ancient  city,  bearing  the  name  of  Osirtasen  I.,  clearly  shows. 
"  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  university  of  the  land  of  Misraim :  its 
priests  from  the  most  remote  epochs  were  the  great  depositaries  of  the 
ological  and  historical  learning;  and  it  was  of  sufficient  political  im 
portance  to  furnish  ten  deputies,  or  one  third  of  the  whole  number, 
to  the  great  council  which  assisted  the  Pharaohs  in  the  administra 
tion  of  justice."  Herodotus  remarks  that  the  inhabitants  of  Heliop 
olis  were  regarded  as  the  most  learned  of  the  Egyptians;3  and 
Strabo  informs  us  that  they  pointed  out  to  him  the  residences  of 
Plato  and  Eudoxus,  who  remained  thirteen  years  with  the  priests.8 

Accustomed  to  law  books  in  Egypt,  and  being  educated  in  the 
most  learned  city,  whose  priests  were  especially  devoted  to  historical 
investigations,  and  where  he  had  often  seen  the  annals  of  Egyptian 
kings,  it  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if,  as  a  lawgiver,  Moses  should 
write  no  laws,  and  if  with  all  his  learning  he  should  not  do  for  his 
ancestors  and  contemporaries  what  the  Egyptian  priests  had  done 
for  their  countrymen,  namely,  give  written  history.  During  a  period 
of  forty  years  he  had  ample  opportunity  to  write  his  laws  and  the 
annals  of  the  Hebrew  people.  If  Julius  Caesar  could  write  seven 
books  of  Commentaries  on  the  Gallic  Wars,  half  the  size  of  the  Pen- 
1  Wuttke,  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  u.  s.  w. ,  p.  5  73.  2  Liber  ii,  3.  3  Liber  xvii,  29. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  117 

tateuch,  in  the  midst  of  his  campaigns,  which  lasted  nine  years, 
surely  Moses,  notwithstanding  his  numerous  official  duties,  might 
write  twice  as  much  in  forty  years. 

Mohammed,  too,  the  great  Arabic  legislator,  wrote  down  his  sys 
tem  in  the  Koran,  which  is  about  the  size  of  the  Pentateuch,  during 
the  period  of  twenty-three  years,  the  last  half  of  which  was  spent 
in  numerous  wars.  Moreover,  writing  was  but  little  used  in  Arabia 
before  Mohammed's  time. 

Zaleucus,  the  celebrated  Locrian  lawgiver,  wrote  his  laws  (B.  C. 
660) ;  and  so  did  the  distinguished  Athenian  lawgivers,  Draco  (B.  C. 
621)  and  Solon  (B.  C.  594). 

But,  further,  a  legislator  in  the  position  of  Moses  would  have  had 
the  strongest  reasons  for  writing  his  laws.  For  many  of  his  institu 
tions  were  entirely  new,  and  others  were  modifications  of  previously 
existing  customs.  A  theology  was  to  be  inculcated  wholly  different 
from  that  of  the  idolatrous  nations  in  close  contact  with  the  He 
brews,  and  the  entire  system  was  to  be  maintained  in  opposition  to 
the  public  sentiment  that  everywhere  prevailed.  Without  a  written 
revelation,  to  which  they  could  refer  as  a  standard,  and  which  would 
be  a  perpetual  check  to  their  idolatrous  tendencies,  there  Probability  of 
would  have  been  the  greatest  danger  of  the  corruption  Moses  writing 
of  the  system.  What  would  have  become  of  Christian-  lus  laws' 
ity  itself  if  it  had  been  handed  down,  for  some  centuries,  by  oral 
tradition  only,  instead  of  having  been  committed  to  writing  in  the 
first  century? 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    STATEMENT   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH    RESPECTING    ITS 

AUTHOR. 

'TMIAT  Moses  kept  a  record  of  his  laws,  and  of  the  most  impor- 
•*•  tant  events  of  the  journey  through  the  Desert,  appears  from  va 
rious  passages  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  Exodus  xvii,  14  it  is  said,  in 
reference  to  Amalek,  "  And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for 
a  memorial  in  the  book  (not  in  a  book,  as  in  the  English  version), 
and  rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua :  For  (that)  I  will  utterly  put 
out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven."  The  infer 
ence  to  be  drawn  is,  not  that  this  writing  was  something  unusual 
and  exceptional,  but  that  the  statement  might  seem  to  be  so  unim- 


118  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

poitant  that  Moses  would  not  think  it  necessary  to  write  it  in  his 
book ;  for  no  one  will  pretend  that  Moses  wrote  every  event  of  the 
Exodus.  He  was  to  write  it  in  the  book  of  laws  and  records  for 
permanency  and  emphasis.  In  Exodus  xxiv,  3,  4,  it  is  stated:  "  And 
Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the  words  of  Jehovah  and  all 
the  judgments,  .  .  .  and  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Jehovah,  .  .  . 
And  he  took  (the)  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in  the  audience 
of  the  people."  The  book  here  referred  to  contained,  evidently,  all 
the  laws  and  precepts  hitherto  given  to  the  people.  Again,  in  Num 
bers  xxxiii,  2,  we  read  :  "  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  accord 
ing  to  their  journeys  by  the  command  of  Jehovah." 

The  following  commandment  we  find  in  Deuteronomy  xvii,  18, 19  : 
"  And  it  shall  be  when  he  (the  king)  sitteth  upon  the  throne  of  his 
kingdom,  that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a  book  out 
of  that  which  is  before  the  priests  the  Levites :  and  it  shall  be  with 
him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life ;  that  he  may 
learn  to  fear  Jehovah  his  God,  to  keep  all  the  words  of  this  law  and 
these  statutes,  to  do  them." 

Reference  is  also  made  to  the  book  of  the  law  in  Deuteronomy 
xxviii,  6 1  :  "Also  every  sickness  and  every  plague  which  is  not  writ 
ten  in  the  book  of  this  law  f  also  in  chap,  xxix,  20,  21,  27  :  "  All  the 
curses  that  are  written  in  this  book;"  "All  the  curses  of  the  cove- 
References  to  nant  tnat  are  written  in  this  book  of  the  law;"  "  To 
the  Book  of  the  bring  upon  it  all  the  curses  that  are  written  in  this  book." 
Again  :  "  If  thou  shalt  hearken  unto  the  voice  of  Jehovah 
thy  God,  to  keep  his  commandments  and  his  statutes  which  are  writ 
ten  in  this  book  "  (Deut.  xxx,  10).  u  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses 
had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until 
they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  which  bare 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  saying,  Take  this  book  of  the 
law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  your 
God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee  "  (Deut.  xxxi, 
24-26). 

There  is  nothing  strange  in  the  mention  of  the  book  of  the  law  in 
the  book  itself  ;  the  fact  has  its  analogy  in  other  writings.  Thus,  in 
the  Koran  of  Mohammed  we  have  the  Koran  named  :  "  They  to  whom 
we  have  given  the  book  (of  the  Koran) ; "  "  Teach  them  the  book 
(of  the  Koran)  ;  "  "  The  month  of  Ramadan  (shall  ye  fast),  in  which 
the  Koran  was  sent  down;"  "This  Koran  could  not  have  been 

composed  by  any  except  God;"1  "Verily  if  men  and 
The  Koran.  }  .    . 

genii  were  purposely  assembled  that  they  might  produce 

a  book  like  this  Koran,  they  could  not  produce  one  like  unto  it.  ... 
1  Sale's  Kor&n,  chap,  ii,  chap.  x. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  119 

And  we  have  variously  propounded  unto  men  in  this  Koran  every  kind 
of  figurative  argument ; "  and,  "  We  send  down  of  the  Koran  that 
which  is  a  medicine  and  a  mercy  unto  the  true  believers."  In  other 
passages  are  similar  allusions.1  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  the  author 
of  one  of  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha,  inserts  his  own  name,  near  the 
end  of  the  last  chapter  but  one  of  his  work :  "  I,  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Sirach  of  Jerusalem,  have  inscribed  in  this  book  instruction  in  wis 
dom  and  knowledge." 

The  statements  in  the  Pentateuch  respecting  its  authorship  are  in 
every  way  worthy  of  credit.  If  the  Pentateuch  was  not  written  by 
Moses,  it  is  a  forgery.  The  most  of  the  declarations  respecting  the 
Mosaic  authorship  are  found  in  Deuteronomy.2  If  Moses  did  not 
write  that  book,  then  it  is  a  wicked  fraud,  and  not  "  an  innocent  fic 
tion,"  as  it  has  been  called.  The  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  has  been 
pointed  out,  and  in  another  place  we  will  show  that  it  belongs  to 
the  Mosaic  age,  so  that  the  declarations  in  the  book  itself  respect 
ing  its  authorship  apply  to  the  whole  book. 

It  is  objected  that  Moses,  throughout  the  Pentateuch,  is  spoken 

of  in  the  third  person  :  "  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses."    But 

r  J  Moses  speak- 

this  usage  is  no  real  objection  to  the  Mosaic  authorship,  ing    m    the 

as  can  be  shown  from  many  analogies.  Julius  Caesar,  oa*AV*nan' 
in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Gallic  Wars,  always  speaks  of  himself 
in  the  third  person,  and  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  from  the  phrase 
ology  whether  he  wrote  the  work  or  not.  Xenophon,  in  the  Anaba 
sis,  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person :  "  There  was  in  the  army 
a  certain  Athenian,  Xenophon,  who  accompanied  the  army  neither 
as  a  general  nor  a  captain  nor  a  private  soldier;  but  Proxenos,  an 
old  acquaintance,  had  sent  for  him."  (Book  iii,  cap.  i.)  The  same 
form  of  speaking  occurs  in  numerous  other  places.  Likewise  in  the 
Memorabilia  (i,  cap.  iii,  §  9)  he  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  per 
son  :  "  Tell  me,  Xenophon,  he  said,"  etc.  "  And  Xenophon  replied." 
Josephus,  in  his  Jewish  Wars,  speaks  of  himself  invariably8  in  the 
third  person,  as  for  example :  "  Josephus,  the  son  of  Matthias,  is  ap 
pointed  governor  of  the  two  Galilees,"4  and  "it  was  reported  that 
Josephus  died  at  the  capture6  (of  the  town)." 

In  Caesar's  Commentaries,  Xenophon's  Anabasis,  and  in  the  Jew 
ish  Wars  of  Josephus,  the  authors  were  prominent  actors  in  the 
history  they  were  writing,  and  they  viewed  themselves  as  a  part  of 

1  Sale's  Koran,  chap.  xvii. 

2  Bleek  admits  that  Deut.  xxxi,  9,  probably  attributes  the  whole  of  our  Pentateuch 
to  Moses.     Eiuleitung,  p.  308. 

3  I  have  used  the  word  "  invariably,"  for  1  find  no  passage  in  the  Wars  in  which 
he  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person. 

4  Liber  ii,  cap.  xx,  4.  6  Liber  iii,  cap.  ix,  5. 


120  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

that  history  of  which  they  were  both  the  historians  and  spectators. 
In  the  same  way  Moses,  as  the  lawgiver  and  leader  of  the  Jewish 
people,  is  the  principal  character  in  the  whole  history,  and  as  a 
historian  he  considers  himself  to  be  an  objective  part  of  the  story 
he  is  narrating,  and,  consequently,  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third 
person. 

It  has  been  thought  by  some  that  the  passage,  "  Now  the  man 
Moses  was  very  meek,  above  all  the  men  which  were  upon  the  face 
of  the  earth  "  (Num.  xii,  3),  is  not  such  language  as  a  writer  would 
use  in  reference  to  himself.  But  the  Hebrew  word  uy,  rendered 
here  "  meek  "  by  our  translators,  is  thus  defined  by  Gesenius  :  "  op 
pressed,  afflicted,  wretched,  but  every-where  with  the  accessory  idea 
of  humility,  meekness  ;  i.  e.,  the  humble,  the  mee&svrho  prefer  to  suffer 
wrong  rather  than  do  wrong."  (Heb.  Lex.)  Miriam  and  Aaron  had 
••poken  against  Moses  on  account  of  the  Ethiopian  woman  [Cushite, 
Midianite]  whom  he  had  married ;  and  they  said,  Hath  the  LORD 
spoken  only  by  Moses?  hath  he  not  also  spoken  by  us?  And  the 
LORD  heard  it,  and  his  anger  was  kindled  against  them,  and  Miriam 
became  leprous.  The  object  of  the  statement  respecting  Moses* 
meekness  is,  apparently,  to  show  that  no  one  was  farther  removed 
Meekness  of  from  a  revengeful  spirit  than  himself,  and  that  the  pun- 
Moses,  ishment  inflicted  upon  Miriam  was  not  through  any 
resentment  on  his  part.  Perhaps  an  additional  object  was  to  show 
that  Miriam  and  Aaron  presumed  to  speak  against  Moses  because  he 
would  not  avenge  an  insult.  There  are  times  when  men  of  the  great 
est  modesty  and  humility  can  speak  in  the  strongest  terms  in  self- 
vindication  and  self-commendation  :  it  is  when  they  feel  that  gross 
injustice  has  been  done  them,  and  that  their  very  virtues  have  fur 
nished  the  occasion  for  their  bad  treatment.  Under  such  circum 
stances  there  is  a  tendency  to  use  language  stronger  than  calm 
reason  would  justify,  and  stronger  than  even  personal  friends  would 
employ.  Was  there  ever  a  more  egotistical  speech  made  than  that 
of  Demosthenes  De  Corona?  The  occasion  required  it.  St.  Paul 
was  unquestionably  a  man  of  profound  humility.  He  styles  himself 
"  less  than  the  least  of  all  saints."  (Eph.  iii,  8.)  But  in  spite  of  this 
utterance  he  declares  on  another  occasion :  "  For  I  suppose  I  was 
not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles,"  (2  Cor.  xi,  5).  Could 
Apparent  in-  we  believe,  if  we  had  not  the  facts  before  us,  that  such 
ta^aSstate-  apparently  contradictory  statements  could  proceed  from 
ments.  the  same  man  ?  But  the  strong  language  of  self-com 
mendation  was  called  forth  in  vindication  of  his  apostolic  charac 
ter  when  that  was  assailed.  How  absurd  is  Dr.  Davidson's  exposi 
tion  of  this  passage,  that  false  apostles  are  here  referred  to ! 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  121 

In  cases  like  the  present,  criticism  should  be  careful  not  to  go 
beyond  proper  bounds  in  determining  from  the  critic's  own  subjec 
tive  feelings,  which  vary  in  different  individuals,  what  a  man  would 
say — in  seeking  utterances  at  variance  with  its  standard  of  propri 
ety,  and  in  denying  that  they  were  ever  spoken  at  all.  This  is,  in  the 
language  of  Merivale  on  another  subject,  "  the  last  resource  of  the 
morbid  skepticism  which  cannot  surfer  any  author  to  say  more  or 
less  than  harmonizes  with  its  own  gratuitous  canons  of  historical 
criticism."  * 

In  the  first  verse  of  the  thirty-third  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  we 
have  the  following  statement:  "And  this  is  the  blessing  wherewith 
Moses,  the  man  of  God,  blessed  the  children  of  Israel."  There  is  no 
more  necessity  of  referring  this  to  Moses  than  there  is  of  attributing 
to  him  the  superscription  of  the  ninetieth  Psalm  :  "  A  prayer  of  Moses, 
the  man  of  God."  The  thirty-second  chapter  closes  with  the  com 
mand  of  God  to  Moses  to  get  up  unto  Mount  Nebo  and  die  there* 
which  properly  finishes  the  book  and  the  career  of  Moses.  The 
superscription  to  the  thirty-third  chapter  is  given  to  mark  defi 
nitely  that  it  belongs  to  him,  and  to  distinguish  it  from  the  next 
chapter,  the  last,  which  records  his  death,  and  belongs  to  a  later 
hand. 

Against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  it  is  urged  by 
De  Wette  that  "  it  is  nonsense  to  suppose  that  one  man  should  have 
created  the  epic-historical,  rhetorical,  and  poetic  styles  of  writing  in 
their  whole  extent,  the  three  departments  of  Hebrew  literature  in 
substance  and  spirit,  and  have  left  succeeding  writers  nothing  to  do 
but  to  follow  him." 8  In  this  statement  there  is  a  want  of  historical 
accuracy,  and  a  narrow  view  of  the  possible  powers  of  the  human 
mind.  Moses  was  not  the  creator  of  poetry,  nor  of  his-  Answer  to  the 
torical  writing.  Poetry  3  was  in  use  among  the  ancient  charges  of  De 
Egyptians  ;  and  the  ancient  priests  of  Heliopolis,4  where  Wette> 
Moses  was  educated,  were  distinguished  for  their  historical  investiga 
tions.  Poetical  compositions  are  generally  the  first  literary  produc 
tions  of  a  people,  as  we  see  among  the  Hindoos  and  Greeks.  In  the 
Pentateuch  reference  is  made  to  those  who  speak  in  proverbs,  D'S^an, 
(t/if  poets),  Num.  xxi,  27  ;  "  Israel  sang  this  song,"  xxi,  17.  Thus  it  is 
evident  that  it  was  not  Moses  alone  who  possessed  the  poetic  spirit. 
All  the  poetry  attributed  to  him  in  the  Pentateuch  amounts  to  only 
three  or  four  chapters,  and  it  is  not  of  that  lofty  style  which  char 
acterizes  Isaiah,  nor  has  it  all  the  fullness  of  the  Psalms.  The  his 
torical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  are  marked  by  great  simplicity, 

1  Remarks  on  the  Genuineness  of  Caesar's  Commentaries  on  the  Civil  Wars.— 
History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire,  vol.  ii,  p.  209.  note. 

2Emleitung,  p.  268.       3Wuttke,  Geschichte  der  Schrift,  p.  571.     4Ibid.,  570. 


122  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

by  an  entire  want  of  art,  and  abound  in  repetitions.  Thus  it  is  far 
from  being  true  that  Moses  "left  succeeding  writers  nothing  to  do 
but  to  follow  him." 

Moses  was  certainly  a  man  of  great  intellectual  power,  and  the 
variety  of  his  gifts  can  be  determined  only  by  history.  Nor  is  his 
tory  deficient  in  parallels  to  Moses,  so  far  as  the  gifts  of  genius  are 
concerned.  Julius  Caesar  was  a  truly  wonderful  man.  "  He  was 
at  one  and  the  same  time  a  general,  a  statesman,  a  lawgiver,  a 
jurist,  an  orator,  a  poet,  an  historian,  a  philologer.  a  mathematician, 
and  an  architect.  He  was  equally  fitted  to  excel  in  all,  and  has 
given  proofs  that  he  would  have  surpassed  almost  all  other  men  in 
any  subject  to  which  he  devoted  the  energies  of  his  extraordinary 
mind."1 

The  natural  endowments  of  Caesar  seem  to  have  been  greater 
than  those  of  Moses.  Will  the  narrow  criticism  of  De  Wette  reject 
the  history  of  Caesar  as  unhistoric,  and  banish  it-  to  the  regions  of 
the  mythical? 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

THE   BOOK   OF   DEUTERONOMY. 

HPHE  Fifth  Book  of  Moses  is  placed  by  some  of  the  opponents  of 

the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  as  late  as  King  Manasseh  or 

supposed  argu-    Tosiah,  and  it  is  sometimes  represented  as  contradicting 

ment    against   parts  of  the  previous  history  and  legislation.    The  book 

my"    is  undoubtedly  written  in  a  free  and  independent  spirit, 

not  with  a  slavish  adherence  to  what  precedes.     This,  however,  is  by 

no  means  an  argument  against  its  Mosaic  authorship,  but  rather  in 

favour  of  it ;  for  who  would  be  bold  enough  to  deviate  in  any  degree 

in  such  a  work  from  the  Mosaic  history  and  laws  ?     But  this  does 

not  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter,  for  Deuteronomy  professes  to  be 

written  by  Moses;  and  if  it  is  not  his  work  it  is  an  impious  fraud, 

and   must   have   been   executed  under  circumstances  of  peculiar 

difficulty.     For  a    Mosaic   code   of  laws  had  (on  this  hypothesis) 

1  Smith,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography,  art.  Caesar. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES,  123 

been  already  long  in  existence,  and  been  recognised  as  his,  and 
used  by  David  and  quoted  by  the  Prophets.  Can  we,  for  impossibility 
a  moment,  suppose  that  a  newly  written  book,  attributed  of  forgery. 
to  Moses,  could  have  so  deceived  the  whole  Jewish  people  as  to  be 
regarded  as  his  real  production,  his  final  legislation,  and  his  farewell 
address  ?  Of  all  forged  writings,  codes  of  laws  are  the  most  difficult  to 
execute  with  success,  for  they  are  matters  of  the  greatest  notoriety 
and  of  public  interest;  while  writings  of  a  private  character,  but 
little  known  and  of  little  public  interest,  may  be  greatly  enlarged  by 
forgery.  But  the  addition  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  long  well  known 
code  of  the  law  of  Moses  was  clearly  impossible.  No  one  in  his 
senses  could  believe  that  such  a  document,  originating  with  Moses, 
had  been  buried  for  five  or  eight  centuries,  especially  when  it  is 
ordered  that  when  "  he  [the  king]  sitteth  upon  the  throne  of  his 
kingdom  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a  book  out  of  that 
which  is  before  the  priests  the  Levites  "  (xvii,  18)  ;  and  "  when  all 
Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  the  place  which 
he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before  all  Israel  in  their  hear 
ing  "  (xxxi,  n).  Further  :  "  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it 
unto  the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi  "  (xxxi,  9).  Can  it  be  supposed 
that  a  book  thus  submitted  to  the  Levites  by  Moses,  and  ordered  to 
be  read  at  one  of  the  great  festivals  at  the  end  of  every  seven  years, 
and  of  which  the  king  was  to  obtain  a  copy  for  his  guidance,  should 
be  absolutely  unknown  for  so  many  centuries?  For  if  this  was  in 
credible  to  the  ancient  Hebrews,  they  could  never  have  believed 
that  the  newly-forged  book  was  written  by  Moses.  Imagine  the 
effect  that  would  have  been  produced  in  the  Christian  Church  if  a 
fifth  gospel,  bearing  the  name  of  Peter  or  James,  had  been  forged 
five  or  eight  centuries  after  Christ!  With  what  contempt  it  would 
have  been  treated  !  And  it  is  expressly  enjoined  in  this  book  :  "  Ye 
shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye 
diminish  aught  from  it "  (iv,  2).  A  similar  prohibition  is  made  in 
xii,  32. 

The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  bears  the  stamp  of  Moses  in  both  its  nar 
rative  and  legislative  parts;  and  its  exhortations  also  suit  internal  evi- 
Moses  in  a  striking  manner.  In  a  brief  recapitulation  of 
the  history  of  the  Israelites  Moses  moves  with  great  ease  ship. 
and  freedom,  supplying  incidents  not  found  in  the  previous  history. 
A  forger  would  not  have  ventured  upon  this,  but  would  have  made 
up  his  sketch  from  known  incidents;  nor  would  he  have  dared  to 
depart  in  any  degree  from  the  Mosaic  legislation  lying  before  him. 

Respecting  this  book,  Bleek  remarks  :  "  It  cannot  escape  the  at 
tentive  reader  that  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy  differs  greatly 


124  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

from  the  earlier  books,  in  language,  representation,  in  its  entire  tone, 
in  the  hortative,  warning,  and  threatening  character  pervading  the 
whole  book,  and  leads  to  the  supposition  of  a  different  author  from  the 
editor  of  the  other  books."  l  This  is  an  exaggerated  statement ;  bat 
that  it  should  be  partially  true  is  natural.  Is  not  Washington's 
Farewell  Address  different  from  his  messages  to  Congress?  Is  not 
a  pastor's  farewell  discourse  different  from  his  ordinary  sermons? 
Are  we  so  well  acquainted  with  Moses  as  to  be  able  to  know  ac 
curately  the  style  and  language  he  would  employ,  what  he  would 
say,  and  what  he  would  not  ?  So  far  is  this  from  being  true  that  we 
do  not  know  in  most  cases  what  we  ourselves  would  say  under  given 
circumstances.  It  is  a  narrow  and  overweening  criticism  that  un 
dertakes  to  determine  what  a  writer  or  speaker  should  express  on 
any  given  occasion,  and,  rinding  the  style  and  expressions  different 
from  what  was  to  be  expected,  declares  the  utterances  spurious.  In 
different  circumstances  and  on  different  subjects  the  style  of  the 
same  speaker  or  writer  is  often  found  to  vary.  Sometimes  is  this 
so  much  the  case  that  the  address  or  writing  would,  on  internal 
grounds,  be  pronounced  spurious  if  its  genuineness  were  not  estab 
lished  by  undoubted  external  evidence. 

The  blessings  which  Moses  declares  shall  come  upon  the  Israel 
ites  if  they  are  obedient,  and  the  curses  that  are  to  overtake  them  if 
they  shall  prove  to  be  disobedient,  are  detailed  at  length  in  Deu 
teronomy  chap,  xxviii.  In  Leviticus  xxvi,  3-45,  we  have  similar 
prophecies  of  the  blessings  and  curses  which  may  fall  upon  the 
Israelites,  so  that  in  this  respect  there  is  not  the  slightest  pretext 
for  pretending  that  Deuteronomy  is  different  from  Leviticus.  The 
resemblance  is  so  strong  between  the  two  chapters  that  Bleek  a  de 
clares  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  wrote  the  chapter  in  Levit 
icus.8  This  is,  no  doubt,  true,  but  not  in  Bleek's  sense. 

In  regard  to  the  language  of  Deuteronomy,  we  have  already  re- 
Archaisms  in  marked  that  the  archaisms  peculiar  to  the  first  four 
Deuteronomy,  books  of  the  Pentateuch  run  through  this  book.  In 
Deuteronomy,  as  well  as  in  Numbers,  Jericho  everywhere  has  the 
form  irvv ;  but  in  Joshua  it  is  always  inn',  and  in  i  Kings  xvi,  34, 

the  form  rtrvT  is  found.  Horeb  is  used  in  several  places  in  Deu 
teronomy,  and  Sinai  but  once  (xxxiii,  2) ;  but  Horeb  is  also  used  in 
Exod.  iii,  i,  xvii,  6,  xxxiii,  6 ;  and  it  seems  that  the  whole  mountain 
was  called  Horeb,  and  a  particular  summit  Sinai  (so  Robinson  and 
Fiirst) ;  hence  we  have  the  expression  :nn3  in  Horeb.  Deut.  i,  6 

1  Einleitung,  p.  299.  'Einleitung,  p.  312. 

•  Dr.  Davidson  does  not  attribute  Lev.  xxvi,  3-45  to  the  author  of  Deuteronomy 
but  thinks  the  chapter  in  Deuteronomy  an  echo  of  that  in  Leviticus. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  125 

Psalm  cvi,  19.  And  the  different  meanings  of  the  two  words  suit 
this  view:  Horeb,  waste^  desert ;  Sinai,  rocky,  jagged.  In  the  nine 
teenth  of  Exodus  Mount  Sinai  is  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  a  single 
summit.  But  when  Moses  had  reached  the  plains  of  Moab  the  single 
summit  had  receded,  and  the  general  range  and  name  presented 
themselves  to  his  view. 

The  stand-point  of  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  is  evidently  that  of 
one  in  the  position  of  Moses  on  the  plains  of  Moab.  In  chap,  xi,  30, 
it  is  stated  respecting  mountains  Gerizim  and  Ebal :  "Are  they  not 
on  the  other  side  Jordan,  by  the  way  where  the  sun  goeth  douw,  in  the 
land  of  the  Canaanites,  which  dwell  in  the  champaign  over  against 
Gilgal,  beside  the  plains  [Heb.  oaks]  of  Moreh  ?  "  This  language 
would  be  wholly  unsuitable  and  false  to  one  living  in  Palestine. 
According  to  Dr.  Tristram,  Ebal  and  Gerizim  and  the  opening  of 
the  vale  of  Shechem  l  can  be  seen  from  the  top  of  Nebo.  Phrases  and 
And  we  have  no  doubt  that  from  other  high  points  be-  SJaS'toS 
yond  the  Jordan,  where  Moses  and  the  Israelites  had  Mosaic  age. 
been  sojourning,  the  sun  had  been  often  seen  to  sink  behind  Ebal 
and  Gerizim.  To  a  writer  living  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan 
it  was  not  at  all  necessary  to  state  where  Ebal  and  Gerizim  are  situ 
ated,  for  they  are  conspicuous  mountains.  The  whole  passage  is 
decidedly  Mosaic.  The  cities  of  refuge  east  of  the  Jordan  are  said 
to  be  toward  the  sunrising,  which  suits  the  position  of  Moses,  but 
would  suit  Palestine  equally  well. 

Moses,  in  Deuteronomy  i,  7,  19,  20,  speaks  of  the  mountain  of  the 
Amorites  (the  central  range  of  Palestine).  Reference  is  made  to 
this  in  Num.  xiii,  29  :  "  The  Amorites  dwell  in  the  mountains."  But 
in  the  Book  of  Joshua  the  range  is  already  called  "  the  mountain  of 
Israel"  (xi,  16).  In  Deut.  iii,  u,  mention  is  made  of  Og,  king  of 
Bashan,  the  remnant  of  the  giants  ;  "  Behold,  his  bedstead  was  a  bed 
stead  of  iron  ;  is  it  not  in  Rabbath  of  the  children  of  Ammon  ?  nine 
cubits  was  the  length  thereof,  and  four  cubits  the  breadth  of  it,  after 
the  cubit  of  a  man."  This  passage  belongs  most  suitably  to  the 
Mosaic  age,  and  could  not  have  been  written  after  the  time  of  David, 
for  we  find  in  2  Samuel  xii,  26-31,  that  David  took  Rabbath  of  the 
children  of  Ammon,  and  destroyed  the  inhabitants,  and  got  great 
spoil.  Such  an  incident  as  this  respecting  the  bedstead  of  Og  would, 
in  all  probability,  have  faded  away  had  it  not  been  written  down  in 
the  Mosaic  age. 

The  declaration  that  a  Moabite  shall  never  enter  the  congregation 
of  Jehovah  (Deut.  xxiii,  3)  could  not  have  been  invented  and  at 
tributed  to  Moses  in  the  age  of  David,  or  subsequently,  as  King 
J  Land  of  Moab,  p.  338. 


126  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

David  was  the  great-grandson  of  a  Moabitjss  (Ruth  iv).  The  pro 
hibition  that  the  future  king  should  "  not  multiply  horses  to  him 
self,  nor  cause  the  people  to  return  to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he 
should  multiply  horses,  forasmuch  as  the  Lord  hath  said  unto 
you,  Ye  shall  henceforth  return  no  more  that  way"  (xvii,  16),  was 
quite  natural  to  Moses,  who  might  fear  that  the  Israelites  would  be 
tempted  to  return  to  Egypt.  But  centuries  afterward,  when  the 
people  had  come  to  Canaan,  there  was  no  ground  for  this  fear. 

The  precept  not  to  abhor  an  Egyptian,  "because  thou  wast  a 
stranger  in  his  land  "  (Deut.  xxiii,  7),  differs  from  similar  precepts  in 
the  other  books  from  its  being  special, — "  an  Egyptian," — but  it  is 
very  natural  for  Moses,  who  had  left  Egypt,  to  use  it.  In  subse 
quent  ages,  however,  other  strangers  had  relations  with  Israel. 

In  Deut.  xxviii,  68,  it  is  said, "  The  Lord  shall  bring  thee  into  Egypt 
again  with  ships."  From  this  Dr.  Davidson  infers  that  the  passage  was 
written  after  the  Egyptians  had  become  a  highly  commercial  people, 
and,  of  course,  long  after  Moses.  But  waiving  the  prophetical  char 
acter  of  the  passage,  it  does  not  say,  in  Egyptian  ships.  In  the  Mosaic 
age  the  Phoenicians,  living  on  the  borders  of  Palestine,  were  the  great 
traders  of  the  world.  In  chap,  xxv,  17-19,  special  directions  are 
Proofs  of  Deu-  given  to  blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  un- 
ing^wrmen^n  ^er  heaven,  when  Jehovah  shall  have  given  Israel  rest 
time  of  Moses,  from  their  enemies,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  smitten 
the  hindmost  of  the  Israelites  when  they  were  faint  and  weary. 
The  charge  is  ended  with  the  command :  "  Thou  shalt  not  forget 
it."  Both  Saul  and  David  gained  victories  over  the  Amalekites,  and 
in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  we  find  that  five  hundred  men,  sons  of 
Simeon,  went  to  Mount  Seir,  and  "  smote  the  rest  of  the  Amalekites 
that  were  escaped,  and  dwelt  there  unto  this  day  "  (i  Chron.  iv, 
41-43).  After,  this  nothing  more  is  heard  of  the  Amalekites.  How 
unnatural  it  would  be  for  a  writer,  after  they  had  been  annihilated, 
to  represent  Jehovah  as  commanding  the  Israelites  "to  blot  out 
the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven  ;  thou  shalt  not 
forget  it." 

In  the  blessings  pronounced  upon  the  tribes  of  Israel  (ch.  xxxiii) 
there  is  no  indication  that  the  prophetic  utterances  were  made  up 
at  a  later  period  from  the  history  of  the  tribes  and  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Moses.  The  language  is  too  indefinite.  The  blessing 
pronounced  upon  Benjamin  can  have  no  allusion  to  the  extension 
of  his  border  to  Zion :  "  The  beloved  of  the  Lord  shall  dwell  in 
safety  by  him ;  and  the  Lord  shall  cover  him  all  the  day  long,  and 
he  shall  dwell  between  his  shoulders"  (xxxiii,  12).  But  little  is  said 
respec.ting  Judah ;  and  this  would  be  inexplicable  in  a  prophecy 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  127 

made  up  of  Judah  in  the  days  of  her  kings.  In  Deut.  xviii,  18,  God 
promises  to  raise  up  a  prophet  (rt'^j),  the  singular.  If  the  passage 
had  been  written  in  the  time  of  the  prophets  with  reference  to  them, 
it  strikes  us  that  the  plural,  3'^J,  would  have  been  used. 

The  mention  of  the  Zamzumrnin  (Deut.  ii,  20)  indicates  that  the 
book  was  written  at  an  early  period,  as  they  must  soon  have  faded 
out  of  the  minds  of  the  Israelites. 

The  language  in  xi,  10,  is  extremely  natural  for  one  in  the  position 
of  Moses  :  "  For  the  land,  whither  thou  goest  in  to  pos-  NO  floating  tra- 
sess  it,  is  not  as  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  whence  ye  came  aitions  out  of 
out,  where  thou  sowedst  thy  seed,  and  wateredst  it  ooomy  could 
with  thy  foot,  as  a  garden  of  herbs."  Respecting  some  ^written. 
of  the  details  of  the  Israelitish  history  not  found  in  the  preceding 
books,  from  what  source  could  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  have 
obtained  them  if  he  had  written  seven  or  eight  hundred  years 
after  Moses  ?  Are  we  to  suppose  that  minute  incidents  in  the 
Mosaic  history,  not  incorporated  into  the  first  four  books  of  the 
Pentateuch,  had  been  floating  about  like  sibylline  leaves  for  cen 
turies  ?  It  is  incredible  that  there  were  historical  sources  for  the 
Mosaic  his'tory  outside  of  the  first  four  books,  on  which  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  could  have  drawn  in  the  age  of  Josiah,  or  even 
in  that  of  David.  When  Luke  wrote  his  gospel  many  writings  on 
the  history  of  Christ  had  already  appeared,  but  not  a  vestige  of  them 
is  found  in  the  second  century.  Two  or  three  hundred  years  after 
Christ  there  was  nothing  authentic  respecting  him  except  what  had 
been  written  in  the  apostolic  age.  And  that  age,  too,  was  one  of 
great  literary  activity,  and  the  highest  interest  was  felt  in  every 
thing  pertaining  to  the  Saviour.  In  the  prophets,  psalms,  and  histo 
rians  of  the  Old  Testament  subsequently  to  the  Mosaic  age,  the  his 
torical  references  to  that  period  are  taken  from  the  Pentateuch,  and 
from  no  other  source. 

If  the  historical  additions  to  the  Mosaic  history  that  are  given  in 
Deuteronomy  are  not  from  Moses,  they  are  pure  inven-  Additions  in 
tions.  The  additions  are  the  following:  The  repent-  ^ScT^ 
ance  of  the  Israelites  after  they  had  been  defeated  by  the  tory. 
Amorites,  "And  ye  returned  and  wept  before  the  Lord  "  (i,  45) ;  the 
stay  of  the  Israelites  in  Kadesh,  "  Ye  abode  in  Kadesh  many  days  " 
(i,  46) ;  the  command,  "  Distress  not  the  Moabites,  neither  con 
tend  with  them  in  battle  :  for  I  will  not  give  thee  of  their  land  for  a 
possession  "  (ii,  9) ;  the  divine  command  to  cross  the  Arnon  and  to 
begin  to  possess  the  territory  of  King  Sihon  (ii,  24) ;  and,  what  is 
more  important.  "  the  space  in  which  we  came  from  Kadesh-barnea, 
until  we  were  come  over  the  brook  Zered,  was  thirty  and  eight 


128  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

years  ;  until  all  the  generation  of  the  men  of  war  were  wasted  away 
from  among  the  host  "  (ii,  14).  In  ch.  i,  44  it  is  stated  that  the  Amo- 
rites  chased  the  Israelites;  while  in  Num.  xiv,  45,  the  Amalekites 
and  the  Canaanites  are  said  to  have  smitten  them;  but  the  Amo- 
rites  are  doubtless  included  in  the  Canaanites.  In  x,  i,  2,  we  have 
two  separate  commands  (Exod.  xxv,  10,  16;  xxxiv,  i)  blended 
into  one  :  "  At  that  time  the  Lord  said  unto  me,  Hew  thee  two 
tables  of  stone  like  unto  the  first,  and  come  up  unto  me  into  the 
mount,  and  make  thee  an  ark  of  wood.  And  I  will  write  on  the 
tables  the  words  that  were  in  the  first  tables  which  thou  brakest, 
and  thou  shalt  put  them  into  the  ark."  In  the  first-named  passage  in 
Exodus  the  Israelites  were  directed  to  make  an  ark,  in  which  "  thou 
shalt  put  the  testimony  which  I  shall  give  thee ; "  while  in  the  sec 
ond,  Moses  is  directed  to  hew  two  tables  of  stone  like  the  first. 
These  passages  were  evidently  brought  together  by  Moses  for  brev 
ity's  sake. 

The  statement  made  by  Moses  respecting  the  appointment  of 
judges  (Deut.  i,  9-18)  occurs  between  the  command  to  leave  Horeb 
and  the  actual  departure  ;  and  he  speaks  of  their  having  been  con 
stituted  "at  that  time."  But  in  referring  to  Exod.  xviii,  it  seems 
that  Jethro  advised  their  appointment  when  Moses  was  at  the  mount 
of  God ;  yet  they  may  not  have  been  appointed  immediately. 
Again,  in  Deut.  x,  8,  Moses  states  :  "At  that  time  Jehovah  separated 
the  tribe  of  Levi ;  "  but  the  stations  of  the  Israelites,  named  in  the 
verses  immediately  preceding  these  words,  had  not  been  reached 
when  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  consecrated  to  God.  But  Moses  adds: 
"  And  I  stayed  in  the  mount,  according  to  the  first  time,  forty  days 
and  forty  nights;  and  Jehovah  hearkened  unto  me  at  that  time  also, 
and  Jehovah  would  not  destroy  thee.  And  Jehovah  said  unto  me. 
Arise,  take  thy  journey  before  the  people,  that  they  may  go  in  and 
possess  the  land."  It  appears,  then,  that  Deut.  x,  6,  7,  has  no  con 
nexion  with  what  follows. 

In  reciting  the  principal  events  of  the  history  of  the  Israelites  after 
Exact  time  of  they  left  Egypt,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  Moses 
teex^cteJin  snould  state  the  exact  time  of  the  incidents  on  which 
Deuteronomy,  nothing  depended;  it  is  sufficient  that  he  does  not 
contradict  the  previous  history.  But  it  must  be  observed  that 
thirty-eight  years  had  elapsed  since  the  events  narrated  in  Exodus 
and  in  a  considerable  portion  of  Numbers.  Under  these  circum 
stances  considerable  latitude  must  be  given  to  the  phrase  "at  that 
time,"  which  seems  to  be  used  to  indicate  the  comparatively  short 
period  intervening  between  the  departure  from  Egypt  and  the  ar 
rival  in  Kadesh-barnea.  For  after  thirty-eight  years  the  incidents  of 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  129 

the  early  wanderings  in  the  desert  seemed  to  Moses  to  have  oc 
curred,  as  it  were,  in  a  unit,  or  in  one  period  of  time. 

Respecting  the  deviations  between  Deuteronomy  and  the  other 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  Dr.  Davidson  remarks:  "We   Davidson-"No 
admit  that  there  is  no  positive   contradiction  between   |^^e™n^n 
them.    This  has  been  successfully  made  out  by  Stahelin   be  shown. 
and  Von  Lengerke."1 

Respecting  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy,  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  it  is  partly  affirmatory  and  partly  supplementary ;  but  hardly 
any  part  is  revocatory.  The  ten  commandments  de-  Legislation  in 
livered  by  God  from  Mount  Sinai  (Exod.  xx)  are  re-  Deuteronomy, 
peated  substantially  in  Deut.  v,  6-21,  with  a  reference  to  their  orig 
inal  delivery,  "  As  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  commanded  thee ;  "  "  And 
therefore,  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  commanded  thee  to  keep  the  Sab 
bath  day."  The  legislation  in  Deuteronomy  evidently  presupposes 
that  of  the  preceding  books.  The  supplementary  legislation  be 
came  necessary  in  some  cases  from  the  changes  that  were  about  to 
occur  in  the  condition  of  the  Israelites,  in  their  transition  from 
wandering  in  the  desert  to  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  9 
Of  such  a  character  are  the  directions  for  carrying  on  war  (Deut.  xx), 
and  the  command  to  set  up  stones  on  Mount  Ebal  and  to  write  on 
them  the  words  of  the  law,  and  to  bless  the  people  from  Mount 
Gerizim  and  to  pronounce  curses  from  Mount  Ebal. 

The  modifications  of  the  preceding  laws  are  few.  In  Leviticus 
xvii,  4-9,  the  children  of  Israel  are  commanded  to  offer  sacrifice 
only  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  But  in 
Deut.  xii,  and  in  other  passages,  they  are  ordered,  when  they  shall 
have  entered  the  land  of  Canaan,  to  offer  sacrifice  only  in  the  place 
"  which  Jehovah  shall  choose  in  one  of  thy  tribes." 

The  prohibition  against  lending  to  poor  Israelites  upon  usury 
(Exod.  xxii,  25,  Lev.  xxv,  36,  37)  is  expressed  in  general  terms: 
"Thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury  to  thy  brother:  usury  of  money, 
usury  of  victuals,  usury  of  any  thing  that  is  lent  upon  usury."  And 
it  is  added :  "  Unto  a  stranger  thou  mayest  lend  upon  usury  " 
(Deut.  xxiii,  19,  20).  It  does  not  appear  tha*  this  precept  not  to  lend 
on  usury  to  the  Israelites  is  a  revocation  of  the  similar  ones  in 
Exodus  and  Leviticus  not  to  lend  to  the  poor  Israelite  upon  usury. 
For  it  would  be  the  poor  who  would  most  likely  borrow,  as  corpora 
tions,  and  large  business  establishments  requiring  capital,  were  un 
known.  Indeed  the  precept  is  based  upon  the  principle  of  benev 
olence,  and  no  one  would  feel  himself  bound  to  lend  to  the  rich. 
In  Lev.  xxv,  35-37,  it  is  said :  "  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor, 
~j.  -  Introduction,  vol.  i,  p.  367. 


130  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

and  fallen  in  decay  with  thee;  then  thou  shalt  relieve  him:  yea, 
though  he  be  a  stranger,  or  a  sojourner;  that  he  may  live  with 
thee.  Take  thou  no  usury  of  him,  or  increase :  .  .  .  Thou  shalt 
not  give  him  thy  money  upon  usury,  nor  lend  him  thy  victuals  for 
increase."  This  is  evidently  a  command  to<  lend  to  the  poor  Isra 
elite  without  interest ;  but  in  Deuteronomy  there  is  no  command  to 
lend  at  all. 

In  Deut.  xvi,  16,  it  is  enjoined  that  "  three  times  in  a  year  shall 
all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God,  in  the  place  which 
he  shall  choose."  This  command,  with  the  exception  of  the  last 
clause,  is  a  repetition  of  that  in  Exodus  xxiii,  14,  17,  and  xxxiv,  23. 
The  children  of  Israel  are  directed  to  bring  their  sacrifices  to  the 
place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose  out  of  all  the  tribes  to  put  his 
name  there,  and  in  that  place  only  to  offer  their  burnt  offerings 
(Deut.  xii).  It  is  given  with  special  reference  to  their  abode  in 
Canaan  (chap,  xii,  i),  while  that  in  Lev.  xvii,  3—5,  to  offer  the  sacri 
fices  only  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  refers  to 
the  sojourn  in  the  desert. 

Dr.  Davidson  thinks,  that  by  the  expression  in  Deuteronomy,  "  the 
Groundless  place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all 
supposition  of  your  tribes  to  put  his  name  there,"  Jerusalem,  and  not 
the  place  where  the  tabernacle  should  happen  to  be,  is 
designated.1  Of  course,  it  is  to  him  a  proof  of  the  late  origin  of 
Deuteronomy.  Even  upon  the  supposition  that  Jerusalem  is  re 
ferred  to  in  Deuteronomy,  the  proof  of  its  Mosaic  authorship  would 
not  be  invalidated,  except  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  deny  that 
Moses  was  endowed  with  a  prophetic  spirit.  But  the  supposition 
that  the  reference  is  to  Jerusalem  is  destitute  of  all  proof.  For 
when  the  land  was  subdued  by  Joshua  the  tabernacle  of  the  con 
gregation  was  pitched  at  Shiloh  (Josh,  xviii,  i),  and  to  this  place  the 
people  went  up  to  worship  during  the  period  of  the  Judges.  "  The 
house  of  God  was  in  Shiloh  "  (Judg.  xviii,  31)  ;  **  there  is  a  feast  of 
the  Lord  in  Shiloh  yearly"  (Judg.  xxi,  19) ;  "and  this  man  went  up 
out  of  his  city  yearly  to  worship  and  to  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  of 
hosts  in  Shiloh  "  (i  Sam.  i,  3) ;  "  and  brought  him  unto  the  house  of 
the  Lord  in  Shiloh"  (i  Sam.  i,  24);  and  "so  the  people  sent  to 
Shiloh,  that  they  might  bring  from  thence  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
the  Lord  of  hosts,  which  dwelleth  between  the  cherubim  "  (i  Sam. 
iv,  4).  But  Jeremiah  furnishes  the  clearest  proof  that  Shiloh  was 
the  place  chosen  of  the  Lord  before  Jerusalem:  "But  go  ye  now 
unto  my  place  which  was  in  Shiloh,  where  I  set  my  name  at  the 
first,  and  see  what  I  did  to  it  for  the  wickedness  of  my  people 

1  Page  363. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  131 

Israel"  (vii,  12).'  Here  is  a  clear  reference  to  Deut.  xii,  n  :  "  a 
place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name  to 
dwell  there." 

The  language  of  Deuteronomy,  from  its  indefiniteness,  suits  any 
place,  and  contains  nothing  inconsistent  with  a  Mosaic  Language  of 
origin  ;  moreover,  it  is  referred  to  in  several  instances  pro^TTi 
in  the  subsequent  history  of  Israel.  For  example,  sale  origin. 
Joshua  "  made  them  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the 
congregation,  and  for  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  even  unto  this  day,  in 
the  place  which  he  should  choose  "  (Josh,  ix,  27).  In  Solomon's 
prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple  we  find  an  undoubted  refer 
ence  to  Deut.  xii,  5  :  "  Toward  the  place  of  which  thou  hast  said, 
My  name  shall  be  there  "  (i  Kings  viii,  29). 

In  connexion  with  the  command  to  offer  sacrifice  only  in  the 
place  which  the  Lord  should  choose,  it  is  said :  "  Ye  shall  not  do 
after  all  that  we  do  here  this  day,  every  man  whatsoever  is  right  in 
his  own  eyes  "  {Deut.  xii,  8).  Here  Dr.  Davidson  supposes  that 
the  author  of  Deuteronomy  has  transferred  the  existing  state  of 
things  at  a  late  period  to  the  Mosaic  age.8  But  this  is  an  un 
founded  supposition.  If,  however,  it  is  to  be  referred  to  a  period 
later  than  the  Mosaic  age,  the  period  of  the  Judges,  when  "  every 
man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes  "  (Judg.  xvii,  6 ; 
xxi,  25),  and  not  that  of  King  Josiah,  more  than  eight  centuries 
after  Moses,  would  seem  more  suitable.  But  there  is  no  necessity 
to  refer  it  to  a  post-Mosaic  period  at  all.  The  disorderly  state  of 
things  grew  out  of  the  unsettled  life  of  the  Israelites  before  they 
entered  Canaan :  "  For  ye  are  not  as  yet  come  to  the  rest  and  to  the 
inheritance  which  the  Lord  your  God  giveth  you  "  (Deut.  xii,  9). 

In  Lev.  xvii,  3-7,  the  children  of  Israel  are  charged  in  the  follow 
ing  language :  "  What  man  soever  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel, 
that  killeth  an  ox,  or  lamb,  or  goat,  in  the  camp,  or  that  killeth  it 
out  of  the  camp,  and  bringeth  it  not  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  to  offer  an  offering  unto  the  Lord  before  the 
tabernacle  of  the  Lord  ...  to  the  end  that  the  children  of  Israel 
may  bring  their  sacrifices,  which  they  offer  in  the  open  field,  even 
that  they  may  bring  them  unto  the  Lord,  unto  the  door  of  the  taber 
nacle  of  the  congregation,  unto  the  priest,  and  offer  them  for  peace 
offerings  unto  the  Lord."  In  Deut.  xii  it  is  said,  in  respect  to  the 
place  which  Jehovah  should  choose :  "  Thither  ye  shall  bring  your 
burnt  offerings,  and  your  sacrifices,  and  your  tithes,  and  heave  oflfer- 

"  So  that  he  forsook  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh,  the  tent  which  he  placed  among 
men  ;  .  .  .  but  chose  the  tribe  of  Judah,  the  Mount  Zion  which  he  loved."  Psa. 
Ixxviii,  60,  68.  *  Page  368. 


132  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

ings  of  your  hand,  and  your  vows,  and  your  freewill  offerings,  and 
the  firstlings  of  your  herds  and  of  your  flocks  :  and  there  ye  shall 
eat  before  the  Lord  your  God."  Then  follows  the  command  not  to 
do  as  at  present,  "  every  man  whatsoever  is  right  in  his  own  eyes." 
In  Lev.  xvii  the  command  has  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  animals 
only,  while  not  a  word  is  said  in  reference  to  tithes,  heave  offerings, 
vows,  freewill  offerings,  and  the  firstlings  of  herds  and  flocks,  re 
specting  which  Deut.  xii  gives  directions  after  the  people  shall  have 
entered  the  land  of  Canaan. 

Respecting  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy,  we  may  ask.,  Who  would 
improbability  venture  to  annul  or  modify  any  of  the  laws  of  Moses 
of  the  annul-  contained  in  the  preceding  books?  Such  abrogations 
ingot  laws  ol  or  modifications  could  come  only  from  the  lawgiver 
Moses.  himself.  All  additions  to,  or  explanations  of,  the  Mo 

saic  legislation  would  have  assumed  the  form  of  tradition,  and  would 
not  have  been  incorporated  into  the  written  code.  This  has  been 
actually  the  case  with  the  oral  tradition  of  the  Jews,  which  they 
pretend  was  handed  down  from  Moses.  They  have  never  been  bold 
enough  to  incorporate  it  into  the  Pentateuch,  but  wrote  it  down  in  a 
separate  work,  The  Mishna,  more  than  sixteen  centuries  after  Mo 
ses.1  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  numerous  traditions,  but  it 
has  never  gone  so  far  as  to  incorporate  them  into  the  New  Testa 
ment.  Nor  have  the  Mohammedans  inserted  their  numerous  tradi 
tional  precepts  into  the  Koran. 

Had  the  Pentateuch  been  revised  by  a  late  author,  the  supposed 
Deuteronomist,  for  example,  it  must  have  presented  a  different  as 
pect,  and  all  the  precepts  bearing  upon  one  subject  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  been  brought  together,  and  would  not  lie  scattered, 
as  at  present,  in  an  undigested  form,  as  they  were  delivered  at  dif 
ferent  times. 

Deuteronomy  properly  ends  with  chapter  xxxii,  49-52,  "Get  thee 
up  into  this  mountain  Abarim,"  etc.  The  blessing  of  Moses 
(xxxiii)  has  the  addition,  "  the  man  of  God,"  which  is  foreign  to 
the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch.  Chapter  xxxiv  shows  itself  to  be  quite 
a  late  appendix,  from  another  hand,  after  the  tribes  of  Israel  had 
settled  in  Canaan.  For  it  says  the  Lord  showed  Moses  "all  Naph- 
tali,  and  the  land  of  Ephraim,  and  Mariasseh,  and  all  the  land  of 
Judah"  (verse  2).  This  is  very  different  from  all  the  preceding 
part  of  the  book.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  phrase,  "And  not 
yet  has  there  arisen  a  prophet  in  Israel  like  Moses  "  (verse  10), 
which  points  to  quite  a  late  period. 

1  The  Mishna  was  written  in  its  present  form  A.  D.  219. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  133 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

PROOF   OF  THE  GENUINENESS   OF    THE   PENTATEUCH  FROM 
INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

A  S  we  find  no  sufficient  ground  for  separating  Deuteronomy  from 
^^  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  as  all  the  five  stand 
closely  connected,  the  question  arises,  Do  we  find,  in  any  of  the 
books,  portions  bearing  the  strongest  internal  evidence  of  their 
having  been  written  by  Moses?  For  if  it  can  be  shown  that  Moses 
actually  wrote  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  genuine 
ness  of  the  whole  will  easily  follow. 

The  instructions  respecting  the  building  of  the  ark,  and  especially 

of  the  tabernacle,  and  the  history  of  the  execution  of 

......  .  Instructions 

the  work,  contain  every  mark  ot  having  been  written    concerning  the 


during  the  sojourn  in  the  desert,  at.  the  very  time  of 
the  occurrences.  First,  we  have  in  Exodus  (xxv-xxxi)  ark  belong  to 
minute  directions  given  to  Moses  from  God  respecting  t 
the  construction  of  the  ark,  the  table  of  showbread,  the  garments  of 
Aaron  and  his  consecration,  and  especially  the  tabernacle  ;  and  he 
is  charged:  "And  look  that  thou  make  them  after  their  pattern, 
which  was  showed  thee  in  the  mount  "  (Exod.  xxv,  40).  In  the 
next  place  we  have,  in  Exodus  xxxvi-xl,  a  detailed  account  of  the 
work  itself.  All  this  would  be  unnatural  in  a  post-Mosaic  age.  A 
laboured  description  of  the  way  the  tabernacle  is  to  be  built,  and  a 
tedious  account  of  the  execution  of  the  work,  are  not  to  be  thought 
of  in  the  ages  later  than  Moses.  The  directions  respecting  its  con 
struction  seem  to  have  been  written  before  the  tabernacle  was  erected, 
and  it  appears  that  it  was  built  in  accordance  with  the  written  plan. 
In  this  way  it  may  be  explained  why  we  have  both  the  directions 
respecting  the  building  and  the  history  of  its  execution.1 

The  laws  relating  to  the  leprosy  (Lev.  xiii,  xiv,  1-32)  were  evi 
dently  enacted  and  recorded  in  the  desert,  for  we  find  special  refer 
ence  to  the  encampment  of  the  Israelites  :  "  He  [the  leper]  shall 
dwell  alone  ;  without  the  camp  shall  his  habitation  be  "  (chap. 
xiii,  46)  ;  "  and  the  priest  shall  go  forth  out  of  the  camp  **  (xiv,  3)  ; 
"  and  after  that  he  shall  come  into  the  camp  "  (xiv,  8).  That  these 

1  We  have  already  shown  the  high  state  of  art  that  existed  in  Egypt  in  the  Mo 
saic  age,  thus  refuting  De  Wette's  objection  to  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  tabernacle. 


134  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

laws  have  special  reference  to  the  desert  appears  also  from  their 
being  followed  by  laws  upon  the  same  subject  that  assume  the  living 
of  the  people  in  houses  in  Canaan  :  "  When  ye  come  into  the  land 
of  Canaan,  which  I  give  to  you  for  a  possession,  and  I  put  the  plague 
of  leprosy  in  a  house  of  the  land  of  your  possession  "  (xiv,  34). 
Also  in  Lev.  xvi,  10,  21,  22,  where  it  is  stated  that  the  scapegoat  is 
sent  into  the  wilderness  (desert)  :  "  And  the  goat  shall  bear  upon 
him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a  land  not  inhabited  :  and  he  shall  let 
go  the  goat  *  in  the  wilderness  "  (desert)  ;  ver.  22.  Mention  is  also 
made  of  the  camp  :  "  And  afterward  come  into  the  camp  ;  "  and 
"  afterward  he  shall  come  into  the  camp."  The  incident  related  in 
Lev.  xxiv,  10-16,  concerning  the  blasphemy  of  the  son  of  the  Israel- 
itish  woman  whose  father  was  an  Egyptian,  and  the  proceedings  in 
his  case,  bear  the  stamp  of  historical  truth. 

The  Book  of  Numbers  opens  with  an  enumeration  of  the  children 
n  which  we  find  the  exact  number  of  each  of 


Enumeration 

of  the  Israel-  the  ten  tribes  and  of  the  half  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Ma- 

nasseh,  with  the  omission  of  Levi  (chap.  i).  We  have  in 
the  following  chapter  the  position  assigned  the  most  of  the  tribes  in 
the  line  of  march.  All  this,  in  its  circumstantiality,  bears  marks  of 
having  been  written  in  the  desert.  In  chapter  iii  an  enumeration  is 
made  of  the  Levites,  and  a  statement  is  given  of  their  respective 
charges.  Chapter  iv  gives  specific  directions  concerning  the  parts 
of  the  tabernacle  to  be  borne  by  the  men  between  the  ages  of  thirty 
and  fifty  in  the  families  of  the  three  sons  of  Levi.  This  regulation 
pertained  to  the  Levites  only  during  the  wanderings  in  the  desert 
and  their  entrance  into  Canaan.  After  the  tabernacle  had  been 
pitched  in  Shiloh,  and  the  Levites  settled  in  forty-eight  cities,  this 
temporary  arrangement  certainly  ceased. 

The  Levites,  with  the  exception  of  those  who  bore  the  tabernacle, 
entered  the  divine  service  when  twenty-five  years  of  age  (Lev. 
viii,  24).  Such  an  arrangement  as  this,  with  all  the  attendant  cir 
cumstances,  could  not  have  originated  in  an  age  subsequent  to 
Records  made  Moses,  but  bears  every  mark  of  having  been  adopted 
currence°off  the  on  the  journey  through  the  desert.  The  minute  details 
events.  of  the  offerings  brought  before  the  Lord  (chap,  vii) 

must  have  been  recorded  at  the  time  they  were  made.    The  incident 


J.  Azazel,  rendered  scapegoat  in  the  English  version,  is  most  probably  Satan, 
as  Hengstenberg  understands  it.  Both  Gesenius  and  Fiirst  give  it  as  an  evil 
demon.  It  may  be  Typhon,  the  evil  being  of  the  Egyptian  mythology,  equivalent 
to  Satan.  The  goat  upon  which  were  confessed  the  sins  of  the  people  was  sent 
away  to  f)TNty,  Azazel,  in  the  desert,  not  so  much  as  a  sacrifice  to  this  evil  being  as 
an  indication  to  whom  evil  belongs,  and  to  give  Satan  his  due. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  135 

in  Numbers  ix,  6,  7,  where  certain  men,  denied  by  a  dead  body,  are 
kept  back  from  observing  the  passover,  and  apply  to  Moses  for  re 
dress,  bears  every  mark  of  being  a  genuine  event  recorded  at  the 
time  of  its  occurrence. 

The  law  relating  to  the  blowing  of  the  trumpets  in  Numbers  x 
must  also  have  been  written  in  the  desert,  as  the  following  language 
shows :  "  When  ye  blow  an  alarm,  then  the  camps  that  lie  on  the 
east  parts  shall  go  forward.  When  ye  blow  an  alarm  the  second 
time,  then  the  camps  that  lie  on  the  south  side  shall  take  their 
iourney;  they  shall  blow  an  alarm  for  their  journeys."  The  re 
maining  part  of  the  chapter  abounds  in  details  indicative  of  contem 
porary  history.  The  narrative  respecting  the  man  who  gathered 
sticks  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  who  was  kept  confined  until  the  will 
of  God  respecting  him  was  known,  bears  the  stamp  of  truth.  Nor 
does  the  prefatory  remark,  "And  the  children  of  Israel  were  in  the 
desert,  and  found,"  etc.,  imply  that  the  passage  was  written  after  the 
Israelites  had  entered  Canaan.  It  could  certainly  have  been  writ 
ten  when  they  reached  the  land  of  Moab. 

In  Numbers  xvii,  2,  we  have  the  following :  "  Speak  unto  the  chil 
dren  of  Israel,  and  take  of  every  one  of  them  a  rod  according  to  the 
house  of  their  fathers,  of  all  their  princes  according  to  the  house  of 
their  fathers,  twelve  rods :  write  thou  every  man's  name  upon  his 
rod."  Here  we  have  reference  to  an  Egyptian  custom,  familiar  to 
Moses  and  to  the  other  Israelites  who  had  lived  in  Egypt.  Wilkin 
son  remarks :  "  When  walking  from  home  Egyptian  gentlemen  fre 
quently  carried  sticks,  varying  from  three  or  four  to  about  six  feet  in 
length,  occasionally  surmounted  with  a  knob  imitating  a  flower.  .  .  . 
The  name  of  each  person  was  frequently  written  on  his  stick."  * 

In  Numbers  xix  we  have  an  ordinance  evidently  written  in  the 
desert :  "  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  bring  thee  a 
red  heifer  without  spot,  .  .  .  and  ye  shall  give  her  unto  Eleazar  the 
priest,  that  he  may  bring  her  forth  without  the  camp;  "  "afterward 
he  shall  come  into  tJie  camp  ;  "  and  "  a  man  that  is  clean  shall  gather 
up  the  ashes  of  the  heifer,  and  lay  them  up  without  the  camp  in  a 
clean  place."  The  reference  here  to  the  encampment  of  the  Israel 
ites  in  the  desert  is  obvious.  The  song  sung  by  Israel,  Num.  xxi, 
17,  18,  "  Spring  up,  O  well,"  etc.,  evidently  originated  in  the  desert, 
and  was  perhaps  written  at  the  time.3 

The  customs  and  usages  of  ancient  Egypt,  as  represented  upon 
her  monuments  belonging  to  the  Mosaic  age,  show  by  their  frequent 
correspondence  with  the  institutions  of  the  Pentateuch  that  the 

1  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  ii,  346-348. 

9  Also  the  song  in  xxi,  27-30,  was  most  probably  written  at  the  time  of  the  events. 


136  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

author  of  that  work  was  not  only  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
Egyptian  cus-  ancient  Egypt,  but  that  in  all  probability  he  had  been 

SKT  edUKated  in  that  co»n"T- 

of  theauthorof       The  Abbe  Victor  Ancessi,  in  his  treatise  on  L'Eeypte 

the  Pentateuch  ,,    ..  ,  r 

with    ancient   et    Moise,   shows   so    many    points    of   correspondence 

Egypt.  between  the  mitre,  the  robe,  and  the  breastplate  of  the 

Jewish  high  priest,  the  material  of  the  dress  of  the  priests,  the 
garments  of  the  Levites,  and  the  sacrifice  of  doves1  as  described 
Ancessi  prov-  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  ar- 
ing  correspon-  rangements  of  a  similar  nature  found  on  the  monu- 
Jewteh services  ments  of  Egypt,  that  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  this 
range m en fs*on  le£islation  originated  in  the  desert  during  the  Mosaic 
Egyptian  mon-  age.  "  It  is  impossible  that  these  pages  [the  pages  of  the 
uments.  Pentateuch  that  describe  the  garments  of  the  Hebrew 

priests  and  the  sacrifice  of  doves],  which  are  bound  by  bonds  so  close 
and  strong  to  the  entire  work  of  Moses,  were  not  written  immediately 
after  (au  lendemain,  on  the  morrmv)  the  Exodus  and  for  a  people 
still  full  of  the  memory  of  Egypt.  Moreover,  these  pages  were 
evidently  dictated  by  a  man  who  knew  thoroughly  the  Egyptian 
rites  and  customs,  and  who  had  been  initiated  into  the  ideas,  tastes, 
and  arts  of  the  most  original  civilization  of  antiquity.  Now,  in  all  the 
history  of  Israel,  only  one  considerable  and  influential  man  is  found 
in  these  conditions — "that  is  Moses.  The  only  time  when  the  organ 
ization  of  worship  could  take  place  was  in  crossing  the  desert.  It 
is  useless  to  insist  upon  these  two  points.  No  one  is  allowed  to  call 
them  in  question.  It  was,  then,  by  Moses,  and  during  the  sojourn 
of  the  Hebrews  in  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  that  these  pages  were  writ 
ten."8  We  may  add  that  the  pictures  of  the  Egyptian  arks  on  the 
monuments  sufficiently  correspond  with  the  description  of  the  He 
brew  ark  of  the  covenant  (Exod.  xxv,  10-22;  xxxvii,  1-9)  to  show 
the  pattern  after  which  it  was  largely  modeled.3 

The  foregoing  facts  prove  conclusively  that  the  priestly  legislation 
in  the  Pentateuch  was  largely  affected  by  Egypt,  and  there  is  not  a 
vestigeof  Babylonian  influence  visible  in  its  composition  ;thusthe  the 
ory  of  Graf,  Wellhausen,  and  W.  Robertson  Smith  that  the  priestly 
legislation  was  the  work  of  Ezra,  and  possibly  others  during  or  after 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  carries  its  own  refutation  upon  its  very  face. 

1  The  sacrifice  of  doves  is  mentioned  in  Lev.  i,  14-17  ;  v,  8.  The  English  trans 
lation  is  partly  erroneous.  The  dove's  neck  is  to  be  wrung,  but  not  separated 
from  the  head.  There  are  pictures  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  in  which  the 
priests  are  wringing  the  necks  of  the  doves,  but  not  separating  them  from  the  head. 

8  L'Egypte  et  Moi'se,  par  L'Abbe  Victor  Ancessi,  Paris,  1875. 

3  See  pictures  of  the  Egyptian  arks  in  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical  Literature, 
and  in  M'Clintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  137 

The  remark  on  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad,  and  their  inheritance, 
found  in  Num.  xxvii,  1-7,  has  all  the  marks  of  genuine  history,  and 
was  recorded,  no  doubt,  at  the  time  of  the  event.  Chapter  xxxiii 
contains  the  journeys  of  the  Israelites  from  the  time  they  left  Suc- 
coth  until  they  arrived  in  the  plains  of  Moab ;  and,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  the  narrative  must  have  been  written  in  the  Mosaic  age. 
Besides,  it  is  expressly  stated :  "  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  ac 
cording  to  their  journeys." 

Even  of  those  who  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  there 
are  found  some  who  admit  that  large  portions  of  it  were  Bieek's  conces- 
written  by  Moses.  Bleek  thinks  that  large  sections  were  "eTtions  oS 
written  either  by  Moses,  or  by  some  one  in  his  age.  sale  origin. 
"  Of  this  nature,"  he  says,  "  are  many  laws  which  contain  clear  traces 
of  the  Mosaic  age,  found  especially  in  Leviticus,  and  also  in  Numbers 
and  Exodus,  which  refer  to  relations  and  circumstances  that  existed 
only  in  the  Mosaic  age,  when  the  people  wandered  in  the  desert  and 
were  closely  pressed  together  in  camps  or  under  tents — a  condition 
of  things  which  was  entirely  changed  after  the  people  took  posses 
sion  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  had  settled  in  the  towns  and  in  the 
open  country." '  Under  this  head  he  places  the  first  seven  chapters 
of  Leviticus,  chapters  xi-xvi,  xvii,  and  Numbers  xix.  He  evidently 
regards  Exodus  xxv-xxxi,  which  contains  the  account  of  the  build 
ing  of  the  tabernacle  and  kindred  matters,  as  having  been  written  in 
the  Mosaic  age.  He.  also  supposes  three  songs  in  Numbers  xxi, 
14,  15,  17,  18,  27-30,  to  have  been  written  in  the  same  period.8 

Bleek  draws  the  following  conclusions  from  the  laws  which  he  ac 
knowledges  to  have  been  written  by  Moses  himself,  or,  sieek's  con- 
at  least,  in  the  Mosaic  age:  "  i.  Although  it  may  be  clusiOQs- 
supposed  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  was  not  composed 
by  Moses,  and  that  many  single  laws  in  it  are  the  product  of  a  later 
age,  yet  the  legislation  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  its  entire 
spirit  and  character,  is  genuinely  Mosaic.  2.  Already  in  the  Mosaic 
age  writing  must  have  been  in  use  among  the  Hebrew  people ;  for, 
without  it,  such  laws  in  such  fulness  would  not  have  been  written 
down  at  that  time.  3.  In  the  Pentateuch  (at  least  so  far  as  the 
three  middle  books  are  especially  concerned)  we  stand  in  general 
upon  historical  ground.  As,  indeed,  in  these  laws  the  same  relations 
of  the  Israelitish  people  are  presupposed  which  the  historical  part 
of  the  Pentateuch  brings  before  us,  so  do  they  serve  to  establish  the 
historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  in  general."' 

Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  also  acknowledges  that  considerable  por 
tions  of  the  Pentateuch  were  written  by  Moses,  or  a  contemporary. 
1  Einleitung,  p.  202.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  202-209.  'Ibid.,  p.  206. 


138  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

He  makes  Moses  the  author  in  substance  of  Exod.  xx,  2-14,  and 
xxi-xxiii,  19.  Chapters  xxv-xxxi,  relating  to  the  building  of  the 
tabernacle,  he  looks  upon  "  as  originating  with  Moses,  and  as  prob 
ably  written  down  by  him  in  its  present  state."1  "Probably,"  says 
he,  "these  are  not  the  only  legal  prescriptions  in  Exodus  which 
Moses  wrote."  "Another  portion,"  continues  the  same  author, 
"  which  seems  to  be  Mosaic  in  its  origin,  and  probably,  too,  in  its 
composition,  is  Lev.  i-vii."  Chapters  xi-xvi,  and  xvii  with  a  slight 
exception,  he  also  refers  to  Moses,  and  thinks  that  xxiv,  1-9,  was 
probably  written  by  him. 

In  Numbers  he  refers  chapters  i,  ii,  iv,  x,  1-8,  xix,  to  the  Mosaic 
age,  and  regards  vi,  22-27,  as  probably  belonging  to  the  same  period. 
Also  in  Numbers  xxi  "  three  poems  are  referred  to,  or  given,  which 
belong  likewise  to  the  Mosaic  age."  "These,"  says  he,  "are  not 
the  onfy  parts  of  the  three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  writ 
ten  by  Moses ;  but  they  are  the  most  probable  and  perceptible  ones. 
Doubtless,  single  prescriptions  are  scattered  here  and  there  through 
out  the  present  books  which  also  came  from  Moses*  pen.  .  .  .  The 
germ  and  nucleus  of  the  entire  legislation  contained  in  these  three 
books  [Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers]  is  Mosaic.  Some  parts  he 
wrote  himself;  others  were  probably  written  by  a  contemporary 
under  his  direction,  or  with  his  sanction."5 

The  concessions  of  Bleek  and  Davidson  are  valuable,  as  coming 
importance  of  from  able  critics  who  are  not  disposed  to  attribute  to 

SeSlndD^  Moses  more  than  tbev  can  wel1  avoid  conceding.  And 
v-idson.  we  remark  that  the  former  has  evidently  more  confi 

dence  in  the  Mosaic  history  than  the  latter. 

In  fact,  no  fair-minded  critic  can  deny  that  large  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  came  from  Moses.  With  this  solid  foundation  on 
which  to  stand,  we  can  fairly  claim  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  be  his 
work,  a  few  passages  possibly  excepted,  which  we  shall  subsequently 
consider.  For  we  have  already  seen  that  there  is  a  unity  of  plan 
running  through  the  whole  of  it,  and  that  from  Genesis  to  Deuter 
onomy  it  is  pervaded  by  the  same  archaisms.  There  is  no  possibil 
ity  of  evading  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  except  by  adopting 
the  document  hypothesis.  Now  this  can  be  applied  with  any  show 
of  reason  to  the  book  of  Genesis  only,  and  breaks  down  altogether 
when  applied  to  the  entire  five  books. 

When  we  find  in  various  parts  of  an  ancient  author  such  strong 

Test  of  inter-   internal  evidence  as  fixes  the  age  of  those  parts,  we 

nai  evidence,      naturally  attribute  the  whole  work  to  the  same  age,  even 

where  we  do  not  discern  the  same  internal  evidence.    For  all  parts  of 

'Introduction,  p.  109.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  109-112. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  1C9 

a  work  do  not  furnish  us  with  criteria  by  which  to  determine  the 
age  and  the  author.  And  if  passages  are  discovered  which  might  be 
referred  to  a  later  age  than  that  clearly  indicated  by  other  parts,  we 
still  refer  them  to  the  age  otherwise  established.  But  if  in  a  work 
of  such  a  character  we  find  words,  or  even  sentences,  of  a  later  pe 
riod,  we  regard  them  as  interpolations,  especially  if  they  do  not 
constitute  an  integral  and  inseparable  part  of  the  whole. 

These  principles  of  criticism,  we  think,  are  just,  and  they  should 
be  applied  in  the  examination  of  the  Pentateuch. 

When  it  is  once  established  that  Moses  wrote  a  portion  of  the  laws 
in  the  Pentateuch,  it  becomes  probable  that  he  wrote  others  also 
which  were  of  equal  importance.  In  fact,  during  the  period  of  forty 
years,  there  was  ample  time  to  develop  the  whole  legislative  system 
of  the  Hebrews  ;  and  being  familiar  with  the  comprehensive  legisla 
tion  of  the  Egyptians,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  he  would  leave 
a  code  of  laws  very  imperfect, — which  would  be  the  case  if  we  deny 
his  authorship  of  any  considerable  part  of  the  legislation  in  the 
Pentateuch. 

It  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  a  small  body  of  laws 
written  down  by  Moses  as  having  been  delivered  by  God  to  him 
— the  great  legislator  who  was  believed  to  be  commissioned  from 
heaven — would  have  received  so  many  large  additions.  Whatever 
laws  Moses  wrote  would  have  had  the  greatest  authority  with  the 
Hebrew  nation,  and  would  have  been  safely  kept,  and  guarded 
as  a  sacred  treasure,  separate  and  distinct  from  all  other  laws. 
Customs  and  regulations  lying  outside  of  the  written  code  would 
be  preserved  as  oral  tradition.  This  is  precisely  analogous  to  what 
has  actually  occurred  with  Jews,  Christians,  and  Mohammedans, 
as  we  have  already  shown.  The  history  in  the  three  middle  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  so  interwoven  with  a  great  deal  of  the  legis 
lation  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate  them ;  so  that  whatever  es 
tablishes  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  laws,  at  the  same  time  estab 
lishes  that  of  the  history.  And  independently  of  this  consider 
ation,  there  are,  as  we  have  seen,  portions  of  the  history  that  bear 
internal  marks  of  having  been  written  in  the  Mosaic  age.  At  all 
events,  we  are  authorized  to  conclude  that  the  Pentateuch  origi 
nated  with  Moses.  And  to  this  view  that  distinguished  orientalist 
and  liberal  biblical  critic,  Roediger,  accedes :  "  The  point  of  com 
mencement  for  this  period,  and  in  general  of  the  litera-  concession  oi 
ture  of  the  Hebrews,  must  certainly  be  fixed  as  early  as  Koedi^er. 
the  time  of  Moses,  even  though  we  should  regard  the  Pentateuch,  in 
its  present  structure  and  form,  as  modeled  by  a  later  hand."  * 
1  Roediger's  Gesenius*  Hebrew  Grammar,  translated  by  Conant,  p.  9. 


140  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
its  language  does  not  differ  as  much  from  that  of  the  later  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  might  have  been  expected.  Dr.  Davidson 
says,  there  is  no  important  difference  between  it  and  that  of  the 
books  written  shortly  before  the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  the 
Babylonian  captivity ; l  and  he  makes  this  a  ground  of  objection  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  there  is  a  glaring, 
Another obieo-  Pa^Pable  inconsistency  in  his  reasoning,  for  he  acknowl- 
tion  of  David-  edges  that  whole  chapters  in  the  Pentateuch  were  writ 
ten  by  Moses.  The  language  of  these  chapters  does 
not  differ  from  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  nor  does  Davidson 
attempt  to  show  that  it  does.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  want  of 
greater  difference  between  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch  and  that 
of  the  later  books  is  utterly  worthless,  so  long  as  it  is  acknowledged 
that  any  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  the  Mosaic  age. 

But  analogies  are  not  wanting.  The  Syriac  language  changed  but 
little  from  the  second  to  the  twelfth  century  of  our  era.  Nor  has 
the  written  Arabic  changed  from  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the 
Koran,  in  the  seventh  century,  to  the  present  time.  Upon  this  point 
Ewald  is  certainly  a  competent  judge.  In  speaking  of  the  Arabic 
language  having  been  cultivated  and  used  by  a  great  number  of 
writers  of  all  kinds,  he  remarks  :  "  So  that  for  nearly  a  thousand 
years  it  has  preserved  in  writings  its  purity  and  peculiar  character 
intact."2 

Between  the  Mosaic  age  and  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon,  of 
stability  of  the  wnom  we  nave  some  undoubted  writings  in  many  of  the 
oriental  lan-  Psalms  and  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  only  four  or  five 
centuries  intervened.  The  Pentateuch  should  be  com 
pared  with  these  writings,  and  the  difference,  we  admit,  is  not  great. 
But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Oriental  tongues  possess  more 
stability  than  the  western,  and  that,  as  the  books  of  Moses  contained 
the  civil  and  religious  code  of  the  Israelites,  they  moulded  and  fixed 
in  a  great  degree  the  whole  language,  which  was  not,  until  a  late 
period,  disturbed  by  foreign  influence.  It  must  also  be  remembered 
that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  without  vowel  points.  These 
points,  and  those  indicating  the  doubling  of  the  consonants,  were 
not  written  until  about  two  thousand  years  after  his  time.  Accord 
ingly,  the  changes  that  occurred  in  the  vowels,  and  in  the  doubling 
of  the  consonants,  fail  to  be  seen  on  account  of  the  language  being 
punctuated  according  to  a  later  standard. 

1  Vol.  i,  p.  103. 

*Ut  per  mille  fere  annos  puritatem  suam  et  indolem  peculiarem  integram  in 
scriptis  conservarit. — Proleg.  to  his  Arabic  Grammar. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  141 

It  has  been  urged  agaiust  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta 
teuch  that  it  gives  but  few  incidents  that  occurred  dur-  Beaaon  ^ym 
ing  a  period  of  nearly  thirty-eight  years,1  the  time  in-  for  slight  treat- 
tervening  between  the  first  arrival  of  the  Israelites  in  Ka-  L 
desh-barnea  (Num.  xiii,  26),  and  their  crossing  the  trook  Zered 
(Num.  xxi,  12,  13;  Deut.  ii,  14).  But  this  can  afford  no  valid  objec 
tion  to  the  genuineness  of  these  books.  These  thirty-eight  years 
are  passed  over  slightly  because  little  or  nothing  of  a  theocratic  char 
acter  intervened,  and  scarcely  any  laws  were  given  during  this  period. 
For  the  same  reason  several  centuries — from  the  death  of  Joseph  in 
Egypt  until  the  birth  of  Moses — are  disposed  of  in  a  single  chapter, 
because  there  was  nothing  of  a  sacred  character  to  relate.  In  the 
same  way  Matthew,  having  given  an  account  of  the  birth  of  Christ 
(i,  ii),  in  the  very  next  chapter  begins  with  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist,  passing  over  a  period  of  twenty-eight  or  twenty-nine 
years  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour,  evidently  because  there  was  nothing 
of  an  official  character  to  disclose.  No  one,  so  far  as  we  know,  has 
ever  objected  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  on  this 
ground ;  it  is,  indeed,  rather  an  argument  in  favour  of  its  genuine 
ness.  It  is  only  apocryphal  gospels  that  have  attempted  to  fill  up 
the  chasm  left  by  Matthew  and  the  other  evangelists.  Is  not  the 
silence  of  the  Pentateuch  in  reference  to  the  history  of  the  Israelites 
during  so  many  years  an  argument  in  favour  of  its  Mosaic  origin,  or, 
at  least,  of  its  genuine  historical  character?  Two  years  had  not 
passed  away,  after  leaving  Egypt,  when  spies  were  sent  to  explore 
Canaan.  Upon  their  return  and  the  giving  of  their  report,  the 
people  murmured  against  Moses  and  Aaron.  The  Israelites,  on 
account  of  their  unbelief,  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  land  of 
Canaan,  but  were  thrown  back  into  the  desert,  and  were  com 
pelled  to  wander  about  for  thirty-eight  years,  as  if  forsaken  of  Jeho 
vah.  But  if  any  thing  of  importance  had  occurred  during  the  time 
thus  passed  over  in  comparative  silence,  it  would  have  found  its 
way  into  the  history  of  the  exodus  in  the  same  way  as  the  other 
events,  whether  the  history  were  written  down  by  Moses,  or  by  some 
one  subsequently  from  tradition,  or  from  documents  belonging  to 
the  Mosaic  age.  It  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  that  this  pe 
riod  was  passed  over  by  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  from  his  ig 
norance  of  its  history;  for  only  on  the  supposition  of  ignorance 
can  this  omission  be  an  argument  against  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch.  The  knowledge  which  the  author  displays  of 
minute  events  in  other  places  forbids  it.  In  Num.  xxx  we  have  a 
list  of  the  encampments  of  the  Israelites  from  the  departure  from 
1  Bleek  lays  great  stress  on  this,  pp.  226,  227. 


142  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Egypt  until  their  arrival  in  the  plains  of  Moab.  And  in  Deut.  ii,  14, 
the  number  of  years  passed  over  from  Kadesh-barnea — from  their 
arrival  there  it  would  seem — until  they  came  to  the  brook  Zered,  is 
stated  to  be  thirty-eight  years.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  writer 
acquainted  with  the  exact  time  spent  between  these  two  points — 
the  last  of  which  is  of  little  importance — should  know  but  little  of 
the  history  itself.  The  most  of  this  period  seems  to  have  been 
spent  at  Kadesh-barnea,  for  Moses  says,  "  Ye  abode  in  Kadesh 
many  days."  Deut.  i,  46. 

The  Pentateuch  was,  very  probably,  revised  by  Moses  a  short 
time  before  his  death,  and  some  passages  were,  perhaps,  added  to 
what  he  originally  wrote. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  FALSITY  OF  THE  THEORY  THAT  THE  EARLY  LEGISLA 
TION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  CONSISTED  ONLY  OF  EXODUS 
XXI-XXIII. 


new  school  of  skeptical  critics  contends  that  the  early  leg- 
islation  of  the  Pentateuch  consisted  only  of  Exodus  xxi-xxiii  ; 
but  an  examination  of  these  chapters  shows  that  such  a  view  is 
wholly  untenable.  The  injunctions  in  these  chapters  are  of  too  in 
definite  a  nature,  and  too  meagre,  to  have  comprised  all  the  early 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  law  concerning  involuntary  homicide  is  of  an  indefinite  and 
Law  on  invoi-  obscure  character,  and  needs  further  legislation  :  "  He 
cide  incom-  that  smiteth  a  man,  so  that  he  die,  shall  be  surely  put  to 

piete    without   death.     And  if  a  man  lie  not  in  wait,  but  God  deliver 
further  legisla-    ......  . 

tion.  him   into  his   hand  ;  then  I  will  appoint  thee  a  place 

whither  he  shall  flee  "  (xxi,  12,  13).  A  specific  description  of  what 
is  to  be  decided  as  involuntary  homicide  is  given  in  Num.  xxxv, 
22,  23,  and  Deut.  xix,  4,  5.  These  passages  supplement  the  pas 
sage  in  Exodus,  while  Num.  xxxv,  13,  14,  and  Deut.  xix,  7,  9,  fix 
the  number  of  the  cities  of  refuge  to  be  appointed  on  each  side  of 
the  Jordan. 

In  the  command  to  keep  three  feasts  a  year  to  the  Lord,  there  is 
an  indefiniteness  respecting  them,  and  the  paschal  lamb  is  not  men 
tioned,  while  the  feast  of  the  passover  is  called  simply  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread.  The  language  employed,  "as  I  commanded  you," 
implies  previous  instruction,  as  we  find  it  in  Exod.  xii,  15-27.  In 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  143 

Lev.  xxiii,  4-42,  particular  injunctions  are  given  concerning  all 
these  feasts,  but  most  especially  respecting  the  feast  of  Pentecost 
and  the  feast  of  tabernacles. 

In  the  three  chapters  of  Exodus  under  consideration  (xxi-xxiii) 
the  word  priest  does  not  occur,  and  there  is  no  mention  made  of  the 
ark  and  of  the  tabernacle.  In  short,  there  is  scarcely  Meaure  legis- 

any  provision  at  all  for  religious  services.     Is  it  likely   lationinreiij?- 

.   _,  *     lous    services 

that  the  system  ot   Moses,  who  was  learned  in  the  lore   in  Exod.  xxi- 

of  Egypt  and  acquainted  with  its  priestly  system,  would  xxiIL 
be  so  meagre  and  have  nothing  in  it  of  a  priestly  nature?  Such  a 
scanty  legislation  seems  to  be  clearly  contradicted  by  the  history 
of  the  Israelites  immediately  subsequent  to  Moses.  For,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  history  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  clearly  estab 
lishes  the  authority  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  find  in  Judg.  xx,  27,  28, 
the  following  statement:  "The  children  of  Israel  inquired  of  the 
LORD,  (for  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God  was  there  [at  Bethel]  in 
those  days,  and  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  stood  before  it  in  those 
days)."  Likewise  in  i  Sam.  i,  3,  9;  ii,  13-16,  27-30,  we  find  a 
tabernacle,  a  priesthood,  and  sacrifices — the  two  latter  declared  to 
be  of  divine  appointment.  Had  Moses  nothing  to  do  with  these 
arrangements?  Kuenen  acknowledges  that  the  ark  of  Jehovah 
came  from  Moses l  himself.  Did  he  make  no  regulations  respect 
ing  it  ?  If  he  did,  why  should  he  not  have  recorded  them  ? 

THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY    BEARS    WITNESS    TO    A    MORE  EXTEN 
SIVE    LEGISLATION    THAN   EXODUS  XXI-XXIII. 

The  entire  skeptical  school  of  critics,  though  they  deny  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy,  grant  that  it  was  written  be 
fore  the  Babylonian  captivity,  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh  or  Josiah. 
In  Deut.  iv,  5,  it  is  declared :  "  Behold  I  have  taught  you  statutes 
and  judgments  even  as  the  LORD  thy  God  commanded  me,"  etc. 
And  after  referring  to  the  ten  commandments,  Moses  adds:  "And 
the  LORD  commanded  me  at  that  time  to  teach  you  statutes  and 
judgments,  that  you  might  do  them  in  the  land  whither  ye  go  over 
to  possess  it "  (verse  14).  It  is  possible  that  this  verse  might  refer 
only  to  Exod.  xxi-xxiii.  In  x,  9,  Moses  refers  to  the  tribe  of 
Levi  having  been  set  apart  by  Jehovah  for  his  service:  "The  Lord 
is  his  inheritance,  according  as  the  LORD  thy  God  promised  him." 
Here  it  is  evident  that,  at  the  time  of  the  composition  of  Deuter 
onomy,  there  were  regulations  respecting  the  tribe  of  Levi  and 
their  service,  and  that  well  known  promises  had  been  made  to  the 

1  Religion  of  Israel,  vol.  i,  p.  289. 


144  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

tribe.  It  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  these  regulations  and 
promises  were  written  just  as  we  find  them  now  in  the  middle  books 
of  the  Pentateuch.  Again,  respecting  the  priests  and  the  Levites, 
"  The  LORD  is  their  inheritance,  as  he  hath  said  unto  them " 
(xviii,  2).  Where  is  this  said  except  in  Num.  xviii,  20?  In 
Deut.  xxiv,  8,  it  is  enjoined,  "  Take  heed  in  the  plague  of 
leprosy,  that  thou  observe  diligently,  and  do  according  to  all  that 
the  priests  the  Levites  shall  teach  you  :  as  I  have  commanded  them, 
so  ye  shall  observe  to  do."  These  regulations  respecting  the 
leprosy  are  contained  in  Leviticus,  embracing  chapters  xiii  and  xiv. 
It  is  clear  that  when  Deuteronomy  was  composed  these  chapters 
had  already  been  written,  and  ascribed  to  Moses.  In  Deut. 
v,  2 ;  xxix,  i,  reference  is  made  to  the  covenant  God  established 
with  Israel  at  Horeb.  At  the  end  of  Lev.  xxvi  it  is  said : 
"  These  are  the  statutes  and  judgments  and  laws  which  the  Lord 
made  between  him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai,  by  the 
hand  of  Moses."  Also  the  closing  verse  of  the  last  chapter  of  Le 
viticus  has  a  shorter  but  similar  statement.  The  Mosaic  legisla 
tion  as  far  as  Num.  x,  12,  was  made  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai, 
a  prominent  mountain  in  the  range  of  Horeb.  In  Deut.  xi,  6, 
allusion  is  made  to  the  destruction  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  whom 
the  earth  swallowed  up,  "  their  households  and  their  tents,"  etc. 
Here  we  find  reference  to  the  rebellion  against  Moses  and  Aaron 
in  connection  with  the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  as  described  in  Num. 
xvi.  In  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram  were  conspicu 
ous  characters,  who  became  a  sign  (Num.  xxvi,  9,  10). 

Korah  is  omitted  in  Deuteronomy,  possibly  because  his  children 
perished  not  (Num.  xxvi,  n),  while  the  families  of  Dathan  and 
Abiram  did.  Kayser  says:  "The  Deuteronomist  had  manifestly 
read  nothing  of  Korah  (in  Num.  xvi),  otherwise  he  would  not  have 
omitted  him."1  Yet  he  acknowledges  that  the  author  of  Psalm  cvi, 
in  which  the  same  omission  occurs,  was  acquainted  with  Korah's 
rebellion.8 

In  Deut.  xx,  6:  "And  what  man  is  he  that  planted  a  vine 
yard,  and  hath  not  yet  eaten  of  it  "  (Heb.,  l'V?n,  hath  profaned  it)  ? 
we  have  a  reference  to  Le*v.  xix,  23,  in  which  the  children  of 
Israel  are  forbidden  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  any  tree  which  they  may 
plant  until  the  fourth  year. 

Our  new  critics  grant  that  the  Deuteronomist  was  acquainted 
with  what  they  call  the  Jehovistic  legislation  and  history,  but 
deny  his  knowledge  of  the  Elohistic.  Yet  in  Deut.  x,  22,  it 

1  Vor-Exilische  Buch,  p.  132.  *  Ibid.,  p.  174. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  145 

is  said  :  "  Thy  fathers  went  down  into  Egypt  with  threescore  and 
ten  persons."     Now  this  refers  to  Gen.  xlvi,   27,   and   Refutatlon   in 
Exod.    i,   5,    both    of    which    are    Elohistic.1      Here,   Deuteronomy 
again,  we   have    a    refutation   of   the    theory   that    the 


Elohistic  history  in  Genesis  was  written  about  the  time   was  written  in 

,.  -r,  Ezra's  time. 

of  Ezra. 

THE    TESTIMONY    OF    HOSEA    TO    A    LARGE    WRITTEN    CODE    OF    LAWS 
THAT    IN    HIS  AGE    HAD  BEEN    ALREADY   GIVEN    TO    ISRAEL. 

This  prophet,  who  flourished  B.  C.  785-725,  bears  witness  to  a 
large  written  code  of  laws  in  the  following  language  : 

utfm  n?"iD3  Tnin  <31  iVarOK,  /  wrote  for  him   (Ephraim)    multi- 

T    :v      T         ,       •   T          ....  T  :  v  J  ' 

tudes  (numerous  precepts)  of  my  law;  what  a  strange  thing  were  they 
counted!  (viii,  12).  The  \trbtowrite  (2H3)  is  in  the  future  tense 
(2rox),  and  "were  counted"  is  in  the  perfect.  But  the  future  tense 
is  often  used  for  the  past,3  of  which  we  have  undoubted  examples 
in  this  prophet.  "  I  will  visit  upon  her  the  days  of  Baalim,  wherein 
she  burned  incense  to  them  and  decked  herself  with  earrings,"  etc. 
(ii,  13).  In  this  passage  "  burned  incense  "  is  in  the  future  hiphil, 
and  "decked"  is  the  future  vav  conversive.  "And  I  have  re 
deemed  them  and  they  have  spoken  falsehood  against  me  "  (vii,  13). 
Here  "  have  redeemed  "  in  the  Hebrew  is  \.\\e  future  tense.  "They 
have  sacrificed  flesh  for  the  sacrifices  of  mine  offerings,  and  have 
eaten  them  "  (viii,  13).  "  Have  sacrificed  "  is  the  future  in  the 
Hebrew.  "They  sacrificed  unto  Baalim  and  burnt  incense  to  grav 
en  images"  (xi,  2).  "Sacrificed  and  burnt  incense"  are  both  in 
the  future*  in  the  original.  "  I  drew  them  with  cords  of  a  man" 
(xi,  4).  "  Drew  "  is  in  the  future  in  the  original.  In  other  passages 
in  this  prophet  the  future  tense  in  the  Hebrew  is  used  for  the 
present. 

Professor  W.  Robertson  Smith  translates  the  passage  in  Hosea  as 
follows  :  "  Though  I  wrote  to  him  my  Torah  in  ten  thousand  precepts, 
they  would  be  esteemed  as  a  strange  thing."4  But  this  w  Robertson 

translation  is  inadmissible,  for  there  is  no   particle  of  Smith's  incor- 

.          rect  translation  . 
condition  or  contingency  in  the  Hebrew  text  —  nothing   Of  passage  in 

to  indicate  a  supposition.     Such  a  method  of  translating   Hosea- 

the    biblical    Hebrew  has   no   parallel  in  any  other  instance,  and 

1  Professor  Sroend  acknowledges  the  reference  to  a  former  Elohist,  Moses  apud 
Prophetas,  p.  74. 

2  This  is  a  common  construction  in  Arabic  as  well  as  in  Hebrew,  and  abounds 
in  the  Qoran. 

3  The  tense  we  call  "  future  "  is  by  some  Hebrew  grammarians  called  the  "  im 
perfect."  .      4The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  297. 

VOL.  I.—  10 


146  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

nothing  but  the  requirement  of  a  preconceived  theory  could  induce 
any  one  to  think  of  such  a  version.  If  the  prophet  had  expressed  a 
mere  supposition  he  would  have  employed  the  particle  ox,  tm,  if, 
altfwugh,  before  the  verb  "wrote,"  just  as  in  Isa.  i,  18  :  "  Though 
(ox,  im)  your  sins  be  as  scarlet  .  .  .  though  (D*,t'm)  they  be  red  like 
crimson,"  etc.;  and  in  Isa.  x,  22.  Or,  possibly,  the  prophet  might 
have  used  "3  DJ,  even  if. 

Nor  do  we  see  how  the  latter  part  of  the  passage  can  be  rendered, 
"They  would  be  esteemed  as  a  strange  thing;"  for  the  tense 
"  counted,"  or  "  esteemed,"  '^perfect  in  the  Hebrew,  and  there  is  no 
connective  particle  that  can  give  it  a  future  meaning.  Professor 
Smith  renders  131  "  ten  thousand  precepts,"  !  taking  it  for  i3-j,  which 
is  found  in  hardly  a  single  instance  in  the  books  written  before 
the  captivity  and  never  as  a  construct  "ten  thousand  of" — in  this 
instance  "  ten  thousand  of  my  law."  The  Masorites  have  put  the 
vowels  to  the  text,  and  given  the  reading  on  the  margin  \\hich 
makes  the  word  read  '3"\  multitudes  of  my  law.  And  it  is  thus  that 
Gesenius  defines  it.  The  singular  is  thus  used  in  Lev.  xxv,  16,  "  mul 
titude  of  years."  The  Septuagint,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben 
Uzziel,  the  Peshito  Syriac,  and  the  Vulgate  have  either  "multi 
tude  "  or  "  multitudes  "  of  my  law. 

Professor  Smith's  version  of  the  passage  does  not  make  good 
sense.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  prophet  Hosea  assumes  that 
Ephraim  is  a  transgressor  of  the  divine  laws  with  which  the  tribe 
was  acquainted.  Why,  then,  should  he  say,  If  I  were  to  write  for 
him  ten  thousand  precepts  (or  any  great  number)  they  would  be 
counted  strange  ?  Is  it  more  likely  that  a  large  body  of  laws  would 
be  obeyed,  rather  than  a  small  one  ?  Would  not  a  law  of  "  ten 
thousand  precepts  "  really  have  astonished,  and  quite  confounded, 
Ephraim  ? 

In  the  next  place,  even  according  to  Prof.  Smith's  translation,  the 
divine  law  consists  of  numerous  precepts,  and  not  simply  of  the 
three  chapters  of  Exodus  which  Prof.  Smith  recognizes  as  a  written 
code  existing  in  Judah. 

The  translation,  "  I  wrote,"  is  the  rendering  of  both  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  and  the  Peshito  Syriac.  De  Wette  trans 
lates  the  passage  :  "  I  am  writing  out  for  him  many  of  my  laws ; 
how  strange  they  have  been  considered."  But,  at  the  foot  of  the 
page,  he  give  also  another  way  of  translating  it,  namely,  "  I  wrote." 
Pusey  in  his  "  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets,"  renders  "  I 

1  He  has  evidently  thus  translated  the  word  to  show  that  "ten  thousand  pre 
cepts  "  would  not  be  applicable  to  the  Mosaic  law,  as  being  too  large  a  number. 


OF    THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  U7 

write  "in  the  sense  that  the  law  was  written  in  the  past,  but  is 
still  in  force  in  the  present. 

In  the  verse  immediately  preceding  the  one  under  discussion, 
Hosea  says  :  "Because  Ephraim  has  multiplied  altars  to  sin,  they 
have  become  altars  to  sin."  Then  follows  our  text :  "  I  wrote  for 
him  the  numerous  precepts  of  my  law  [Torah],  what  a  strange  thing 
were  they  counted !  " 

That  Hosea  refers,  in  this  passage,  to  the  Mosaic  law,  is  clear 
from  his  using  the  word  Torah,  and  from  the  fact  that  we  know  of 
no  other  divine  law  that  had  been  given  to  Israel.  To  Hosea,g  refer_ 
this  law  Hosea  also  refers  in  the  following  passages :  ence  to  the 
"  Because  thou  [Israel,  the  ten  tribes]  hast  forgotten1  the  Mosalc  law' 
law  [Torah]  of  thy  God  "  (iv,  6).  "  They  [Israel]  have  transgressed 
my  covenant  and  trespassed  against  my  law  [Torah]"  (viii,  i). 

Prof.  Smend  remarks  on  the  passage:  "The  words  of  Hosea  in 
the  eighth  century  [B.  C.]  prove  that  there  were  many  written  laws 
among  the  Ephraimites,  which  were  contained  in  one  book  or  more, 
and,  although  neglected,  they  were  known  to  every  body,  and  in  the 
judgment  of  the  prophet  they  could  claim  obedience  from  all,  as 
they  seemed  to  possess  as  much  divine  authority  as  if  they  had 
been  written  by  Jehovah  himself."3  Hosea  thus  refutes  Kuenenrefut- 
Kuenen,  who  says:  "In  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  but  ed  by  Hosea. 
few  laws.  .  .  .  were  ascribed  to  Moses  and  carried  back  to  the 
sojourn  in  the  desert  of  Sinai."3  For  we  may  ask,  Who  but  Moses 
gave  these  laws  to  the  Ephraimites  ? 

1  Prof.  Smith  infers,  from  the  fact  that  the  law  was  forgotten,  that  it  was  not  writ 
ten,  but  was  merely  the  oral  law  ;  just  as  if  a  written  law  could  not  be  forgotten  ! 
God  says  in  Ezek.  xxiii,  35  :  "  Because  thou  hast  forgotten  me."  Similar  is  Hos. 
viii,  14,  and  elsewhere.  If  Israel  could  forget  his  Maker,  why  could  he  not  forget 
a  written  law? 

3  Moses  apud  Prophetas,  pp.  13,  14,  Halis,  1875. 

3  Religion  of  Israel,  vol.  i,  p.  139. 


148  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  NEW  CRITICAL  SCHOOL 
ON  THE  PRIESTLY  AND  SACRIFICIAL  SYSTEMS  IN  THE  PEN 
TATEUCH. 

THE    THEORY    OF    THE    NEW    CRITICAL    SCHOOL    CONCERNING    THE 
JEWISH    PRIESTHOOD    REFUTED    BY    FACTS. 

A  CCORDING  to  the  new  critical  school,  in  the  original  legisla- 
•**•  tion  of  the  Pentateuch,  all  the  Levites  were  capable  of  becom 
ing  priests,  and  "before  the  exile  the  high  priest  was  looked  upon 
as  the  first  among  his  equals."1  But  we  find  in  Ezra  i,  5  ;  ii,  70, 
the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  already  existing  when 
Early  distinc-  Zerubbabel  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  in  accordance  with  the 
decree  of  Cyrus,  about  eighty  years  before  Ezra  went 
up  to  Jerusalem.  At  that  time  it  is  stated  that  certain 
sons  of  the  priests  were  unable  to  show  their  genealogy,  that  they 
were  put  out  of  the  priesthood  as  polluted,  and  that  the  governor 
had  forbidden  them  to  eat  of  the  most  holy  things  until  there  stood 
up  a  priest  with  Urim  and  Thummim.  Here  we  have  a  refer 
ence  to  the  regulation  in  Lev.  xxii  forbidding  any  one  but  the 
priests  to  eat  of  holy  things  ;  also  to  Num.  iii,  10,  respecting  the 
Aaronic  priesthood  ;  and,  finally,  to  the  high  priest  with  Urim  and 
Thummim,  Aaron  as  named  in  Exod.  xxviii,  30,  and  Eleazar  in 
Num.  xxvii,  21. 

Many  of  the  priests  and  Levites  who  went  up  with  Zerubbabel 
are  stated  to  be  old  men,  and  to  have  seen  the  first  house  (Ezra 
iii,  12).  Hence  it  is  clear  that  it  would  have  been  impossible  to 
impose  on  them  regulations  that  had  not  existed  under  the  first 
temple. 

The  number  of  the  priests  who  went  up  with  Zerubbabel  to 
Jerusalem  is  stated  to  be  over  four  thousand  (Ezra  ii,  36-39).  This 
number  of  priests  may  seem  to  be  too  great  for  the  whole  number  of 
returning  captives — forty-two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  many  of  the  priests  in  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  in  the  time  of  Jeroboam  left  it  for  the  kingdom  of  Judah. 
Besides  this,  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  the  priests  would  be  espec- 

1  Kuenen. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  149 

ially  anxious  to  return  to  their  own  country,  to  resume  their  sacred 
functions. 

In  the  sixth  year  of  Darius  (B.  C.  515) — about  sixty  years  before 
Ezra  came  up  to  Jerusalem — when  the  new  temple  was  dedicated, 
it  is  said,  "They  set  the  priests  in  their  divisions,  and  the  Levites 
in  their  courses,  for  the  service  of  God  which  is  at  Jerusalem;  as  it 
is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses  "  (Ezra  vi,  18). 

Artaxerxes,  in  his  decree  in  favour  of  Ezra,  giving  the  Jews  per 
mission  to  return  to  Jerusalem,  speaks  in  two  places  of  "  priests 
and  Levites."  Hence  these  two  classes  were  already  discriminated 
before  Ezra  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 

Nehemiah,  governor  of  Judah,  in  his  book  (chap,  xii)  gives  an 
account  of  "  priests  and  Levites  "  who  went  up  to  Jerusalem  with 
Zerubbabel.  It  seems  perfectly  plain,  then,  that  at  least  eighty 
years  before  Ezra  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  was 
cleajly  recognized.  Nowhere  does  there  appear  a  single  trace  of 
dispute  respecting  priests  and  Levites  ;  their  status  appears  already 
fixed.  No  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  Levites  appears.  They 
join  heartily  in  the  services  and  offer  up  prayers. 

But  how  could  the  Levites  who  were  not  descendants  of  Aaron 
be  deprived  of  the  priesthood  without  provoking  the  bitterest  op 
position  ?  Neither  Ezra  nor  Nehemiah  gives  us  the  slightest  hint 
of  it;  nor  does  Jewish  tradition  know  any  thing  of  it.  In  2  Chron. 
xxiii,  18;  xxx,  27;  and  Neh.  xi,  20,  the  priests  are  called  "the 
priests  the  Levites."  In  2  Chron.  xi,  14,  it  is  said:  "Jeroboam  and 
his  sons  had  cast  them  [the  Levites]  off  from  executing  the  priest's 
office."  In  2  Chron.  xxix,  5,  the  priests  and  Levites  are  addressed 
as  "Levites."  From  the  first  of  these  passages,  if  not  from  the 
second,  it  could  be  easily  inferred  that  all  Levites  are  priests.  In 
Joshua  the  phrase  "the  priests  the  Levites"  occurs*  twice  in  iii,  3, 
and  viii,  33,  but  never  yet  "priests  and  Levites."  Both  Chronicles 
and  Joshua  discriminate  clearly  the  priests  from  the  Levites  in 
other  passages.  Joshua  assigns  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron, 
thirteen  cities  (xxi,  4,  19).  The  account  of  the  assignment  of  these 
cities  must  antedate  the  Babylonian  captivity.  For,  apart  from  the 
arguments  that  may  be  advanced  from  the  language  of  the  book, 
which  no  unprejudiced  Hebraist  can  assign  t<3  the  period  of  the 
captivity,  or  later,  some  of  the  cities  assigned  by  Joshua  to  the 
Levites  among  the  tribes  of  Israel,  already  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah, 
no  longer  belonged  to  Israel.  Jahazah  (Josh,  xxi,  36)  is  given  to  the 
Levites,  but  in  Jer.  xlviii,  21,  it  belongs  to  Moab.  Mephaath  (Josh. 
xxi,  37)  and  Heshbon  (Josh,  xxi,  39)  are  also  assigned  to  them. 
But  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  the  first  of  these  two  cities  belonged  tQ 


150  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Moab  (Jer.  xlviii,  21),  and  the  other  also  to  Moab  (xlviii,  3),  and 
already  in  the  time  of  Isaiah  (xv.  4).  In  Josh,  xxi,  18,  Anathoth  is 
assigned  to  the  priests.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  statement  of 
Jer.  i,  i,  that  he  was  among  the  priests  of  that  town.  In  the  de 
scription  of  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple  mention  is  made  of 
"  the  priests  and  the  Levites  "  (i  Kings  viii,  4),  the  only  passage  in 
this  book  where  they  are  named  together. 

That  the  priesthood,  in  the  original  Mosaic  law,  was  restricted 
original  re-  to  the  sons  of  Aaron  is  clear  from  i  Sam.  ii,  27,  28, 

pShoo?  thto  where  a  man  of  God  say§  to  Eli  the  pnest:  "Thus 
sonsof  Aaron,  saith  the  LORD,  Did  I  plainly  appear  unto  the  house  of 
thy  father,  when  they  were  in  Egypt  in  Pharaoh's  house  ?  And  did 
I  choose  him  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  be  my  priest,  to  offer 
upon  mine  altar,  to  burn  incense,  to  wear  an  ephod  before  me  ?  and 
did  I  give  unto  the  house  of  thy  father  all  the  offerings  made  by  fire 
of  the  children  of  Israel  ?  "  That  Eli  was  a  descendant  of  Aaron 
through  Ithamar  appears  from  a  comparison  of  i  Chron.  xxiv,  3 ; 
i  Sam.  xxii,  20;  and  i  Kings  ii,  27.  By  "  the  house  of  thy  father  " 
the  descendants  of  Aaron  alone  can  be  intended.  For  there  exists 
not  a  vestige  of  proof  that  God  appeared  to  Levi  and  gave  him  the 
priesthood  several  centuries  before  the  Exodus  and  the  Mosaic  legis 
lation.  Nor  could  "  the  house  of  thy  father  "  be  one  of  the  descend 
ants  of  Aaron,  for,  in  that  case,  the  LORD  could  not  have  spoken 
to  him  in  "  the  house  of  Pharaoh/'  The  passage  in  Samuel  under 
consideration  clearly  refers  to  Exod.  xxviii,  i,  4;  Num.  xvi,  5; 
xviii,  i,  7;  Lev.  ii,  3, 10,  etc.  Also  in  i  Sam.  ii,  30,  the  declaration, 
"  I  said  indeed  that  thy  house  and  the  house  of  thy  father  should 
walk  before  me  forever,"  evidently  refers  to  Exod.  xxix,  9:  "And 
the  priest's  office  shall  be  theirs  [Aaron  and  his  sons]  for  a  perpetual 
statute." 

In  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  the  phrase  "  the  priests  the  Levites  " 
occurs  four  times,  and  the  phrase  "  the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi  " 
twice.  In  Deut.  xxvii,  9,  it  is  said  :  "  Moses  and  the  priests  the 
Levites  spoke  unto  all  Israel,  saying,  Take  heed  and  hearken,  O 
Israel;  this  day  thou  art  become  the  people  of  the  LORD  thy 
God."  It  is  very  improbable  that,  by  this  language,  "  the  priests 
the  Levites"  means' the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  united  with  Moses  in 
speaking  to  "all  Israel,"  of  which  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  a  part. 
"  The  priests  the  Levites  "  is  equivalent  to  Levitical  priests.  In 
similar  language  Korah  and  his  company  are  called  "  sons  of  Levi  " 
(Num.  xvi,  6-8).  They  are  named  after  the  tribal  head.  When 
first  appointed  the  priests  are  often  called  '*  Aaron  and  his  sons" 
(Numbers)  for  identification. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  151 

In  Deut  xxxiii,  8-10,  in  the  blessing  pronounced  by  Moses  upon 
Levi,  it  is  said  :  "  Thy  Urim  and  thy  Thummim  belong  to  thy  pious 
one  [literally,  to  the  man  thy  pious  one]  (Aaron),  whom  thou  didst 
tempt  in  Massah,  with  whom  thou  didst  strive  at  Meribah  ;  who 
said  to  his  father  and  to  his  mother,  I  have  not  seen  him  [them]  ; 
and  his  brethren  he  did  not  recognize,  and  his  sons  he  did  not 
know  ;  for  they  shall  observe  thy  word  and  keep  thy  covenant. 
They  shall  teach  thy  judgments  to  Jacob,  and  thy  law  to  Israel  : 
they  shall  put  incense  before  thee,  and  whole  burnt  offerings  upon 
thy  altar."  If  we  refer  these  priestly  acts  to  the  sons  of  Aaron,  the 
last  noun  before  "  they  shall  observe,"  etc.,  the  passage  is  in  per 
fect  harmony  with  the  Aaronic  priesthood  as  laid  down  in  the  Pen 
tateuch.  But  it  is  contended  that  these  priestly  offices  are  attrib 
uted  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  not  simply  to  the  descendants  of 
Aaron.  To  this  we  reply,  that  what  belongs  to  a  part  (Aaron  and 
his  sons)  may  be  ascribed  to  the  tribe  of  which  they  form  a  part. 
Thus  in  Psalm  Ix,  7,  it  is  said,  "  Judah  is  my  lawgiver"  (sceptre  — 
Gesenius)  ;  that  is,  the  king  is  of  that  tribe.  In  the  same  way,  "  the 
sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah  "  (Gen.  xlix,  10)  naturally 
means  that  the  sceptre,  the  emblem  of  kingly  power,  belongs  to 
some  individual  or  family  of  that  tribe,  and  not  to  the  whole  tribe. 
In  the  Athenian  Senate  the  tribe  out  of  which  the  presiding  officer 
was  taken  was  called  the  "  presiding  tribe,"  not  because  the  whole 
tribe  presided,  but  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  president  was  of 
that  tribe.  Hence  the  language  of  Socrates  :  "  I  was  Senator  and 
our  tribe  happened  to  be  the  presiding  (n^vravsvovaa)  tribe."1 

In  a  similar  manner,  Malachi  —  seventeen  years  after  Ezra  came 
up  to  Jerusalem,  when  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites 
is  acknowledged  to  have  existed  —  declares:  "My  covenant  was 
with  him  "  (Levi).  But  "  Ye  [the  priests]  have  corrupted  the  cov 
enant  with  Levi,  saith  the  LORD  of  hosts  "  (ii,  5,8).  Here  the  cov 
enant  with  Aaron  is  called  the  covenant  with  the  tribal  head. 

In  Deut.  x,  8,  Moses  says  :  At  that  time  "  the  Lord  separated  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  to  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  to  stand 
before  the  Lord  to  minister  unto  him,  and  to  bless  in  his  name,  unto 
this  day."  Here  the  offices  of  priests  and  Levites  are  blended. 
To  bless  the  people  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  seems  to  have  been 
the  prerogatives  of  the  priests  only.2 

In  Deut.  xviii,  i,  it  is  said  :  "  The  priests  the  Levites,  all  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  shall  have  no  part  nor  inheritance  with  Israel  :  they 


/a  Sw/cpdrouf  ,  cap.  xx. 
9  Prof.  Curtiss,  in  his  scholarly  work  on  the  Levitical  Priests,  clearly  shows  that 
this  was  the  office  of  the  priests  only. 


152  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

shall  eat  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire,  and  his  inheritance  " 
(that  is,  what  is  offered  to  God).  This  language  is  applicable  to 
the  priests  only,  who  had  a  share  of  what  was  offered  as  sacrifice. 
Besides  this,  the  addition  made  to  the  words  "  the  priests  the 
Levites,"  of  "all  the  tribe  of  Levi,"  indicates  that  the  priests  do 
not  comprehend  the  whole  tribe.  Verse  3  describes  the  part  of 
the  sacrificed  animal  which  the  priest  shall  receive. 

In  various  passages  in  Deuteronomy  the  Levite  is  spoken  of  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he  could  not  be  a  priest.  The  Levite  is 
to  have  a  share  of  the  tithes  brought  to  the  place  which  the  LORD 
should  choose  (Deut.  xii,  1 2).  Of  the  tithes  laid  up  within  the  gates  of 
the  Israelites  at  the  end  of  every  three  years  the  Levite  is  to  have 
a  share.  In  Deut.  xxvi,  12,  it  is  said  :  "When  thou  hast  made  an 
end  of  tithing  all  the  tithes  of  thine  increase  the  third  year,  which  is 
the  year  of  tithing,  and  hast  given  it  unto  the  Levite,  the  stranger," 
etc.  According  to  Num.  xviii,  21,  24,  the  tithes  are  given  to  the 
Levites.  No  such  provision  is  made  for  the  priests. 

The  Levite  is  set  forth  in  Deuteronomy  as  a  proper  subject  of 
charity,  but  the  priests  are  never  thus  described.  Besides,  it  is  very 
unlikely  that,  if  all  the  Levites  were  priests,  they  would  be  called 
by  their  tribal  name,  and  not  by  their  official  name.  Furthermore, 
Deuteronomy  requires  the  Israelites  to  offer  sacrifice  only  in  that 
place  which  Jehovah  should  choose  from  among  all  the  tribes  (xii,  5, 
n,  14).  In  the  same  spirit  Leviticus  commands  that  the  sacrifices  shall 
be  offered  only  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation 
(xvii,  3-7).  In  Num.  iv,  46-48,  the  number  of  the  Levites  from 
thirty  years  of  age  to  fifty  who  entered  into  the  service  of  the  taber 
nacle  is  eight  thousand  five  hundred  and  eighty.  Now,  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  Moses,  or  any  one  else,  would 
appoint  all  these  Levites  to  be  priests,  to  officiate  at  one  sanctuary 
alone.  But  if  we  are  not  to  rely  upon  this  large  number,  it  is  still 
incredible,  or,  at  least,  highly  improbable,  that  all  the  middleaged 
male  Levites  would  be  made  priests,  to  offer  sacrifice  at  one  taber 
nacle. 

In  Deut.  x,  6,  it  is  stated  :  "  There  Aaron  died,  and  there  he  was 
buried ;  and  Eleazar  his  son  ministered  in  the  priest's  office  in  his 
stead."  This  accords  with  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Aaron  and  Eleazar  are  the  only  priests  definitely  named  in  Deu 
teronomy,  and  the  language  certainly  favors  the  view  that  Aaron  had 
been  chief  priest  and  head  of  the  family  of  priests.  In  deciding 
difficult  matters  of  controversy,  it  is  directed  that  they  shall  be 
taken  up  to  the  place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose,  to  be  decided 
by  the  priests  and  the  judge  who  shall  be  there.  And  it  is  added : 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  153 

"That  the  man  that  will  do  presumptuously,  and  will  not  hearken 
unto  the  priest  that  standeth  to  minister  there  before  the  LORD 
thy  God,  or  unto  the  judge,  even  that  man  shall  die  "  (Deut.  xvii, 
8-12).  The  naming  of  a  single  authoritative  priest  in  the  last 
verse  indicates  that  he  is  the  high  priest. 

In  the  history  of  the  Israelites  subsequent  to  Moses  we  find  sev 
eral  references  to  a  high  priest.  In  Josh,  xx,  6,  we  have  reference 
to  "  the  high  priest  "  that  shall  be  in  those  days.  In  Judg.  xx,  27,  28, 
we  find  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  standing 
before  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  He  was  evidently  high  priest.  In 
2  Kings  xii,  10,  in  the  time  of  King  Jehoash  (B.  C.  856),  mention 
is  made  of  the  high  priest.  In  the  time  of  Josiah  (B.  C.  624),  it  is 
stated  that  the  king  commanded  Hilkiah  the  high  priest  and  the 
priests  of  the  second  order,  etc.  (2  Kings  xxiii,  4) ;  and  in  chap. 
xxv,  1 8,  and  in  Jer.  lii,  24,  Seraiah  is  chief  priest  and  Zephaniah 
the  second  priest.  In  the  time  of  the  prophet  Haggai  (B.  C.  520), 
we  find  that  Joshua  the  son  of  Josedech  is  high  priest  (i,  i,  12,  14; 
ii,  2,  4).  About  the  same  time  this  Joshua  is  called  high  priest  in 
Zech.  iii,  i,  8;  vi,  n  ;  that  is,  about  sixty  years  before  Ezra  came 
up  to  Jerusalem  from  Babylon.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  office 
of  high  priest  was  no  invention  of  Ezra. 

According  to  i  Chron.  xxiv,  the  distinction  of  priests  and  Le- 
vites  evidently  existed  in  the  time  of  David,  and  is  recognized  in 
various  other  passages  in  the  two  books  of  Chronicles.  Ezekiel,  in 
his  vision  of  the  land  of  Israel,  declares  that  "  the  priests  the  Levites, 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  that  kept  the  charge  of  my  sanctuary,  when  the 
children  of  Israel  went  astray  from  me,  they  shall  come  near  to  me 
to  minister  unto  me"  (xliv,  15).  Now,  Zadok  was  a  descendant  of 
Aaron  through  Eleazar  (i  Chron.  vi,  3-8;  Ezra  vii,  1-5). 

PROOF    THAT    THE    SACRIFICIAL    SYSTEM    OF    THE    MIDDLE    BOOKS    OF 
THE   PENTATEUCH   IS  A   PART   OF    THE   LEGAL  SYSTEM   OF  MOSES. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  the  new  critical  school  that  the  sacrificial 
system  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  formed  no  part  of 
the  original  Mosaic  code.  The  leading  proof  text  in  support  of 
this  position  is  Jer.  vii,  21-23:  "Thus  saith  the  LORD  of  hosts,  the 
God  of  Israel ;  Put  your  burnt  offerings  unto  your  sacrifices,  and 
cat  flesh.  For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them 
in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt  offerings  or  sacrifices  :  but  this  thing  commanded  I  them, 
saying,  Obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
people  :  and  walk  ye  in  all  the  ways  that  I  have  commanded  you, 


154  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

that  it  may  be  well  unto  you."  It  can  be  clearly  shown  that  this 
language  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  God  absolutely  said  noth 
ing,  and  gave  no  commandment  about  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices. 
In  Gen.  xlv,  8,  Joseph  in  Egypt  tells  his  brethren:  "Ye  did  not 
send  me  hither,  but  God."  But  according  to  Gen.  xxxvii,  28, 
Joseph's  brethren  sold  him  to  the  Ishmaelites  who  were  going  into 
Egypt.  Of  course,  the  meaning  is  that  Divine  providence  had 
arranged  his  coming  into  Egypt.  In  the  same  manner,  in  Exod. 
xvi,  8,  Moses  says  to  the  Israelites :  "  Your  murmurings  are  not 
against  us,  but  against  the  LORD."  Yet  in  the  second  verse  of  this 
very  chapter  it  is  said  :  "  The  whole  congregation  murmured  against 
Moses  and  Aaron."  Their  murmurings  against  these  leaders  was 
Refutation  of  nothing  in  comparison  with  their  murmurings  against 
sceptical  ob-  God.  Similar  is  the  language  of  i  Sam.  viii,  7,  where 
die  books  of  God  says  to  Samuel,  when  the  Israelites  demanded  a 
Pentateuch.  king:  ''They  have  not  rejected  thee,  but  they  have  re 
jected  me  that  I  should  not  reign  over  them."  But,  in  fact,  they  had 
rejected  Samuel.  Again,  in  2  Chron.  xx,  15,  Jehoshaphat  is  told  by 
the  Lord:  "For  the  battle  is  not  yours,  but  God's  ;"  that  is,  it 
pertained  more  to  God  than  to  him. 

There  is  one  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which  is  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  language  in  Jeremiah.  The  apostle  Paul 
declares  that  "  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
Gospel  "  (i  Cor.  i,  17).  We  might  infer  from  this,  not  only  that  Paul 
never  baptized,  but  also  that  in  his  judgment  baptism  was  not  a 
Christian  ordinance,  and  from  this  we  might  conclude  that  between 
him  and  the  other  apostles  there  was  on  this  subject  a  radical  dif 
ference.  But  the  epistles  of  Paul  refute  such  an  inference.  He 
clearly  means  that  the  chief  part  of  his  mission  was  preaching. 

The  passage  in  chap,  vii  of  Jeremiah,  under  discussion,  shows 
in  the  most  striking  language  the  superiority  of  obedience  to  the 
Divine  commands  to  sacrifices  and  offerings,  and  the  utter  worthless- 
ness,  and  even  hatefulness,  of  these  forms,  when  those  who  offer  are 
polluted  by  crime.  In  the  ninth  verse  of  this  chapter  the  prophet 
asks:  "Will  ye  steal,  murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  burn 
su  riorit  of  mcense  unto  Baal,  and  walk  after  other  gods  whom  ye 
obedience  to  know  not ;  and  come  and  stand  before  me  in  this 
house?  "  Also  in  vi,  20,  it  is  said :  "Your  burnt  offer 
ings  are  not  acceptable,  nor  your  sacrifice  sweet  unto  me."  In 
the  same  spirit  Samuel  reproves  Saul:  "Hath  the  LORD  delight 
in  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices,  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the 
LORD  ?  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken 
than  the  fat  of  rams  "  (i  Sam.  xv,  22).  Furthermore,  it  is  difficult 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  155 

to  believe  that  Jeremiah  did  not  recognize  as  Mosaic  the  sacrificial 
and  priestly  system  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  following  passages 
seem  to  make  this  matter  clear :  "  For  thus  saith  the  LORD  .  .  . 
neither  shall  the  priests  the  Levites  want  a  man  before  me  to  offer 
burnt  offerings,  and  to  kindle  meat  offerings,  and  to  do  sacrifice  con 
tinually  "  (Jer.  xxxiii,  17,  1 8)  ;  and,  *'Thus  saith  the  LORD;  If  ye 
can  break  my  covenant  of  the  day,  and  my  covenant  of  the  night, 
and  that  there  should  not  be  day  and  night  in  their  season ;  then 
may  also  my  covenant  be  broken  with  David  my  servant,  that  he 
should  not  have  a  son  to  reign  upon  his  throne  ;  and  with  the  Levites 
the  priests,  my  ministers"  (xxxiii,  20,  21). 

That  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  at  least  was  recognized  by  Jere 
miah  as  proceeding  from  Moses  is  evident  from  the  use  Jeremiah'srec- 
he  makes  of  it.  Nor  is  its  existence  in  the  time  of  Jere-  JSc^Sgii^of 
miah  denied  by  the  sceptical  critics,1  who  identify  it  with  Deuteronomy, 
the  Book  of  the  Law  found  in  the  temple  in  the  time  of  King 
Josiah.  Now,  sacrifices  and  offerings  are  clearly  enjoined  in  Deu 
teronomy. 

As  a  further  proof  that  God  was  not  pleased  with  the  sacrificial 
system  of  the  Israelites,  the  new  school  of  critics  appeal  to  Isa. 
i,  11-14  :  "  To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto 
me  ?  saith  the  LORD  :  I  am  full  of  the  burnt  offerings  of  rams,  and 
the  fat  of  fed  beasts ;  and  I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or 
of  lambs,  or  of  he  goats.  When  ye  come  to  appear  before  me,  who 
hath  required  this  at  your  hand,  to  trample  [to  profane — Gesenius] 
my  courts  ?  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations  [a  lying  sacrifice} ;  in 
cense  is  an  abomination  unto  me ;  the  new  moons  and  sabbaths,  the 
calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the 
solemn  meeting.  Your  new  moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my 
soul  hateth  :  they  are  a  trouble  unto  me ;  I  am  weary  to  bear  them." 
Now,  in  this  list  of  observances  which  are  declared  an  abomination 
and  not  to  be  endured,  are  the  "  sabbaths."  But  even  the  new 
sceptical  school  admits  that  the  sabbath  is  a  part  of  the  Mosaic 
system,  it  being  one  of  the  ten  commandments.  And  if  the  pas 
sages  on  the  feasts  and  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  quoted  from  Isaiah 
prove  that  these  institutions  were  not  of  divine  authority,  it  is  at  the 
same  time  proved  that  the  sabbath  is  not  a  divine  institution.  But 
this  logic  proves  too  much,  and  therefore  proves  nothing.  The 
verse  following  the  passages  quoted  adds :  "  When  ye  make  many 
prayers,  I  will  not  hear."  This  might  be  quoted  to  prove  that  God 
does  not  approve  of  prayer.  But  the  explanation  of  the  whole  pas 
sage  is  easy  :  "  Your  hands  are  full  of  blood  "  (verse  15).  The  lan- 
'Colenso  holds  that  Jeremiah  wrote  Deuteronomy. 


156  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

guage  of  Isaiah  creates  no  difficulty.  It  merely  asserts  strongly  the 
futility  and  hatefulness  of  rites  and  ceremonies  when  hypocrisy  and 
crimes  pollute  the  observers  of  them. 

The  superiority  of  morality  and  piety  to  sacrifice,  and  the  com 
parative  insignificance  of  the  latter,  is  emphasized  by  the  prophet 
Micah :  "  He  hath  showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good  ;  and  what 
doth  the  LORD  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and 
to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  "  (vi,  8).  But  if  we  press  upon  this  lan 
guage  closely  the  feast  of  the  passover,  and  even  the  sabbath,  may 
be  excluded  from  the  list  of  requirements. 

The  Lord,  in  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  sons  of  the  stranger  who 
join  themselves  to  him,  says :  "  Their  burnt  offering  and  their  sac 
rifices  shall  be  accepted  upon  my  altar"  (Ivi,  7);  and  in  Ix,  7,  he 
declares  of  the  rams  of  Nebaioth :  "  They  shall  come  up  with  ac 
ceptance  upon  my  altar." 

That  sacrifices  were  acceptable  to  God  appears  from  Mai.  iii,  4 : 
"  Then  shall  the  offering  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  be  pleasant  unto 
the  LORD,  as  in  the  days  of  old,  and  as  in  former  years." 

In  i  Sam.  ii,  29,  a  man  of  God  reproves  Eli  for  the  violation  of 
the  law  of  sacrifice,  declaring :  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  .  .  .  Where 
fore  kick  ye  at  my  sacrifice  which  I  have  commanded  in  my  habi 
tation  ?  "  The  divine  authority  of  sacrifice  is  here  recognized. 

In  Exod.  xx,  24,  standing  in  close  connection  with  the  ten  com 
mandments,  it  is  enjoined  :  "  An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  unto 
me,  and  shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  thy  peace 
offerings,  thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen  :  in  every  place  where  I  record 
my  name,  I  will  come  unto  thee,  and  I  will  bless  thee;"  that  is,  in 
whatever  place  I  shall  appoint  for  worship  and  sacrifice.  In  Exod. 
xxii,  20,  it  is  declared  :  "  He  that  shall  sacrifice  to  any  god  save  to  the 
LORD  only,  he  shall  be  utterly  destroyed,"  which  shows  that  sacri 
fices  are  to  be  offered  unto  Jehovah.  In  Exod.  xxiii,  18,  it  is  or 
dered  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leavened 
bread;  neither  shall  the  fat  of  my  sacrifice  remain  until  the  morn 
ing."  Here  we  have  regulations  respecting  sacrifice.  Now  our 
new  sceptical  critics  admit  that  Exod.  xxi-xxiii  was  the  first 
legislation. 

In  concluding  this  subject  we  may  remark,  that  as  Moses  found 
the  custom  of  offering  sacrifices  already  in  existence,  it  would  be  in 
the  highest  degree  improbable  that  he  should  make  no  regulations 
respecting  the  kind  of  sacrifices  to  be  offered,  the  persons  by  whom 
they  were  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  and  place  of  their  offering. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  157 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THE   ALLEGED    TRACES   OF    A    POST-MOSAIC   AGE    IN    THE 
PENTATEUCH. 

HPHAT  the  Pentateuch,  though  composed  by  Moses,  should  have 
•*•  suffered  no  interpolation  whatever  in  the  course  of  more  than 
three  thousand  years,  is  not  very  probable.  We  know  that  the 
New  Testament  itself,  though  only  eighteen  centuries  old,  and  very 
widely  spread  by  numerous  manuscripts  and  several  important  ver 
sions — having,  in  this  respect,  the  advantage  of  the  Pentateuch — 
has  not  wholly  escaped  interpolation.1  Interpolations  as  glosses 
most  generally  occur  in  the  historical  portions  of  a  work,  and  mostly 
at  an  early  period  of  its  existence,  when  more  is  known  respecting  a 
subject  than  is  recorded.  But  they  rarely  ever  occur  in  the  midst 
of  laws  or  general  discussions.  Frequent  interpolations,  of  course, 
weaken  the  authority  of  a  document. 

We  can  easily  imagine  that  in  a  few  instances  explanatory  re 
marks,  and  new  names  for  obsolete  ones,  might  have  MInor  aild  ac_ 
been  written  on  the  margin  of  the  Mosaic  Pentateuch,  cidentai  inter- 
and  afterward  have  been  incorporated  into  the  text,  and  not^eakenau- 
yet  that  they  might  be  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to  af-  thority- 
feet  the  general  integrity  of  the  text,  or  weaken  in  the  least  its 
authority. 

In  the  Septuagint  we  have  two  remarkable  interpolations  in  the 
Book  of  Joshua.  When  this  leader  of  the  Hebrews  razed  Jericho, 
he  pronounced  a  curse  upon  its  rebuilder  (Josh,  vi,  26).  The  Sep 
tuagint  adds  to  the  Hebrew  text  the  following:  "And  thus  did 
Hozan  of  Bethel.  In  Abiron  his  firstborn  he  laid  its  foundations, 
and  in  his  youngest  surviving  son  he  set  up  its  gates."  This  is  sub 
stantially  taken  from  i  Kings  xvi,  34.  Again,  in  Josh,  xvi,  10,  we 
find  it  stated  that  the  children  of  Israel  "  drave  not  out  the  Canaan- 
ites  that  dwell  in  Gezer :  but  the  Canaanites  dwell  among  the 
Ephraimites  unto  this  day,  and  serve  under  tribute."  But  the  Greek 
version  adds  to  the  Hebrew  text :  "  Until  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt 
came  up  and  took  it,  and  burnt  it  with  fire,  and  killed  the  Canaan 
ites  and  Perizzites,  and  those  who  dwelt  in  Gezer,  and  Pharaoh 

1  See  Tischendorfs  eighth  critical  edition  of  Greek  Testament.  The  instances, 
however,  are  few.  John  v,  4;  vii,  53-viii,  II,  are  instances. 


158  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

gave  it  as  a  dowry  to  his  daughter."  This  is  manifestly  taken  from 
T  Kings  ix,  16. 

The  alleged  post-Mosaic  passages  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  real,  do 
not  bring  down  the  work  in  its  present  form — if  we  except  one  or 
two  passages — later  than  the  age  of  Joshua.  But  in  determining 
what  might  have  been  written  by  Moses,  and  what  could  not  much 
The  necessity  dePends  uPon  our  preconceptions.  If  we  regard  mir- 
of  proper  pre-  acles  and  prophecies  as  impossibilities,  or  violent  im 
probabilities,  in  connexion  with  the  Mosaic  history,  and 
consider  Moses  as  nothing  more  than  a  human  legislator,  we  shall 
be  unable  to  form  a  correct  judgment  respecting  the  Pentateuch. 
Under  such  misapprehensions,  wherever  we  meet  with  the  record 
of  miracles,  we  will  conclude  that  this  cannot  be  contemporary  his 
tory,  but  only  legend;  and  wherever  we  meet  with  prophecy,  we 
will  immediately  infer  that  the  prophecies  were  written  after  the  pre 
dicted  events.  To  one  holding  these  views,  the  genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch  will  be  quite  impossible.  But  the  credibility  of  the 
miraculous,  as  belonging  to  a  different  department  of  Christian  the 
ology,  we  do  not  here  discuss. 

We  have  already  seen,  in  the  sketch  which  we  have  given  of  the 
opinions  respecting  the  Pentateuch,  that  it  is  a  favourite  idea  with 
the  opponents  of  its  genuineness  that  the  whole  five  books  passed 
under  the  revision  of  some  rtdacteur^  or  editor,  who  lived  seven  or 
eight  centuries  after  Moses. 

But  there  seems  to  us  a  remarkable  want  of  candour  in  those  who 
hold  such  an  idea.  For  if  they  find  some  traces  of  a  post-Mosaic  age 
in  the  Pentateuch,  why  can  they  not  adopt  the  following  hypothesis : 
Want  of  can-  " We  believe  tnat  tne  Pentateuch  was  substantially 
dour  in  the  op-  written  by  Moses,  but  that  it  passed  under  the  hands  of 
^STutho^p  a  rtdacteur  some  centuries  after  his  time."  Or  could  they 
of  the  Penta-  not  even  allow  that  it  was  revised  by  Joshua  or  Samuel  ? 
Instead  of  some  such  hypothesis  as  this,  there  seems  to 
be  a  studied  effort  on  the  part  of  not  a  few  critics  to  avoid,  as  far  as 
possible,  conceding  the  Mosaic  authorship,  from  a  fear,  it  would 
seem,  of  the  evangelical  consequence  of  such  a  concession. 

But  the  question,  whether  there  are  any  interpolations  or  post-Mo 
saic  passages  in  the  Pentateuch,  must  be  determined  from  the  ex 
amination  of  the  alleged  instances.  The  first  among  these  is  Gen. 
xii,  6:  "And  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land."  There  is  a  sim 
ilar  statement  in  Gen.  xiii,  7  :  "And  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite 
dwelt  then  in  the  land."  In  reference  to  both  of  these  passages  the 
inquiry  arises,  whether  the  language  indicates  that  in  the  time  of 
Abram  the  Canaanites  were  living  in  the  land,  but  were  afterward 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  159 

driven  out ;  or  that  they  were  already  in  the  land,  having  arrived 
there  before  Abram?  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  meaning;  for 
was  it  necessary  for  the  historian  to  inform  the  Israelites  that  the 
Canaanites  once  lived  in  Canaan,  when  everybody  knew  it  ?  But 
it  was  not  known,  independently  of  the  statements  in  Genesis,  that 
already,  in  the  time  of  Abram,  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  were 
in  the  land.  The  first  of  these  passages  stands  in  close  connex 
ion  with  the  promise  made  to  Abram,  "  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give 
this  land,"  which  at  that  time  was  held  by  the  Canaanite.  The 
second  passage  seems  to  assign  a  reason  why  there  was  a  strife  be 
tween  the  herdmen  of  Abram's  cattle  and  the  herdmen  of  Lot's 
cattle ;  because  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  being  in  the  land, 
there  was  not  room  enough  for  the  herds  of  both  Abram  and  Lot. 
The  context  would  seem  to  indicate  this. 

In  Gen.  xiv,  14  it  is  stated  that  Abram  pursued  the  kings  unto 
Dan.  As  there  was  in  the  northern  part  of  Palestine  a  city  (Laish) 
to  which  the  Danites  gave  the  name  Dan  some  time  after  the  con 
quest  of  Canaan  (Josh,  xix,  47,  Judg.  xviii,  29),  it  has  been  thought 
by  many  that  the  passage  in  Genesis  must  have  been  written  after  that 
event.  But  it  is  very  probable  that  the  Dan  in  Genesis  Theiocationof 
is  a  different  place  from  that  called  Laish  in  Joshua  Dan- 
and  Judges.  In  2  Sam.  xxiv,  6,  mention  is  made  of  Dan-jaan, 
which  would  show  that  this  place  was  different  from  that  called 
simply  Dan,  Jerome  remarks  on  the  passage,  "he  pursued  them 
unto  Dan,"  "to  a  town  of  the  Phoenicians  now  called  Paneas."1 
And  in  his  Onomasticon  he  says,  "  Dan  is  a  small  village  four  miles 
from  Paneas  as  you  go  to  Tyre,  which  is  so  called  to-day."  From 
this  it  appears  that  he  believed  in  the  existence  of  two  Dans.  Yet 
in  another  place  he  says,  that  the  Laish  which  the  Danites  took 
is  to-day  called  Paneas;  and  in  still  another,  that  it  is  situated 
near  Paneas.  Dan  existed  in  his  time,  as  he  tells  us,  and  it 
is  now  called  Tell  Kadi  (hill  of  a  Judge,  or  hill  of  Dan),  and  he 
clearly  distinguishes  Paneas  from  this.  The  two  places  have  been 
clearly  identified  in  modern  times,  and  are  two  or  three  miles  apart. 

Fiirst,  in  his  Hebrew  Lexicon,  under  the  word  p  gives  Judge, 
ruler,  a  Phoenician  name  of  Eshmun,  or  Pan,  otherwise  called  [on 
the  coins  of  jjr  hyz,  i.  e.,  Paneas]  Bal-inas,  i.  e.,  Ba'al  Ya'an)  n.  p.  of  a 
Sidonian-Phcenician  city,  situated  on  one  of  the  sources  of  the  Jor 
dan,  in  the  valley  ainTrra,  at  a  short  distance  from  Paneas,  called  in 
Hebrew  |r  1^  [Dan-jaan\,  in  Phosnician  ]£  Sjpa  [Ba'al-ja'an],  as  the 
deity  worshipped  there  (Gen.  xiv,  14).  He  defines  JJT  jn,  Dan-jaan, 
1  Questiones  in  Genesim. 


160  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Dan  playing  the  pipe,  as  the  proper  name  of  Paneas,  where  jjr  Va, 
i.  e.,  Pan,  was  worshipped  in  a  grotto  (2  Sam.  xxiv,  6). 

It  is,  therefore,  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  the  Dan  men 
tioned  in  Gen.  xiv,  14  was  a  Phoenician  town  already  existing  in 
the  time  of  Abraham,  or  at  least  in  the  Mosaic  age. 

But  the  narrative  in  which  Dan  occurs  bears  every  mark  of  antiq 
uity  and  accuracy,  and  such  a  blunder  as  making  Abraham  pursue 
the  kings  to  a  Dan  that  was  not  so  called  until  five  or  eight  centu 
ries  later  is  not  to  be  thought  of  in  such  a  connexion.  In  this  part 
of  the  history  we  have  the  name  that  Zoar  bore  previous  to  the 
overthrow  of  Sodom :  "  And  the  king  of  Bela  (the  same  is  Zoar)." 
The  valley  above  the  Dead  Sea  is  called  "  The  Vale  of  Siddim, 
which  is  the  Salt  Sea"  (ch.  xiv,  3),  a  name  found  nowhere  else,  and 
apparently  the  more  ancient  one.  Mention  is  also  made  of  Hazez- 
on  tamar,  which  in  Joshua  is  called  simply  En-gedi,  which  is  shown 
in  2  Chron.  xx,  2,  to  be  the  same.  The  description  of  the  meeting 
of  Melchizedek  with  Abram  is  likewise  highly  indicative  of  early 
times.  Had  the  passage  under  discussion  been  written  after  the 
Danites  had  captured  Laish,  and  ha,d  the  reference  been  to  that 
town,  we  should  have  expected  to  find  the  following :  "  Unto  Laish, 
the  same  is  Dan." 

In  Gen.  xxviii,  19,  it  is  said  that  Jacob  "called  the  name  of  that 
place  Bethel:  but  the  name  of  that  city  was  called  Luz  at  the  first." 
But  it  is  stated  in  Judges  i,  23 :  "And  the  house  of  Joseph  sent  to 
descry  Bethel :  now  the  name  of  the  city  before  was  Luz."  Here 
NO  inconsist-  tnere  js  no  difficulty  at  all,  for,  although  Jacob  in  pass- 
ency  between  ing  through  the  place  called  it  Bethel,  yet  the  Canaanites 
Genesis  and  would  still  continue  to  call  it  Luz,  the  old  name,  even 
judges.  if  tnev  knew  that  Jacob  called  it  Bethel.  When  the 

Israelites  captured  it,  they  simply  gave  it  the  name  by  which  Jacob 
had  called  it  several  centuries  previously. 

In  Gen.  xxxvi,  31,  there  occurs  the  following  passage,  which  many 
have  regarded  as  having  been  written  after  Israel  had  kings :  "  And 
these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel."  But  in  Gen.  xxxv,  1 1 
God  promises  Jacob  kings  shall  come  out  of  his  loins.  God  had 
also  said  unto  Abraham  respecting  Sarah  (Gen.  xvii,  16)  :  "She 
shall  be  a  mother  of  nations ;  kings  of  people  shall  be  of  her."  The 
prophecy  respecting  Judah  was :  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart 
from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come  " 
(Gen.  xlix,  10),  and  this  conveys  the  same  idea  of  kingly  power  to  be 
possessed.  At  the  birth  of  Jacob  and  Esau  it  was  predicted,  "  The 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger"  (Gen.  xxv,  23).  Yet  in  the  time  of 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  161 

Moses  Israel  had  not  yet  had  a  king,  but  had  been  in  servitude  in 
Egypt ;  while  Esau,  the  younger,  had  kings  among  his  descendants. 

It  does  not  follow  from  the  language  of  the  passage  that  Israel 
already  had  kings :  this  would  be  the  inference  if  kings  had  not 
been  promised :  but  Moses,  being  well  acquainted  with  the  prom 
ises  made  the  patriarchs,  confidently  expected  kings,  and  viewed 
them  as  a  future  reality.  These  considerations,  of  course,  will  have 
no  weight  with  one  who  believes  that  such  promises  were  never 
made  to  the  patriarchs ;  but  he  may  still  believe  in  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  regard  the  passage  under  consid 
eration  as  a  later  addition. 

But  the  enumeration  of  the  kings  and  the  dukes  of  Edom  (Gen. 
xxxvi,  3i-43)  may  be  made  to  yield  a  positive  testi-  Enumeratlon 

mony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.     The  list   of  kings  a  tes- 

.    ,  ,  ,  .  j      7  j    i  j  ^.1  timony  to  the 

contains  eight  kings  and  eleven  dukes,  and  the  govern-   genuineness  of 

ment  appears  to  have  been  an  elective  monarchy,  as  in  Pentateuch, 
no  instance  does  the  son  succeed  the  father.  In  the  days  of  Moses 
Edom  had  a  king;  for  it  is  stated  (Num.  xx,  14)  that  Moses  sent 
messengers  from  Kadesh  unto  the  king  of  Edom.  And  it  had  also 
dukes,  for  in  the  song  which  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel  sang 
at  the  Red  Sea,  after  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh,  it  is  said :  "  Then 
the  dukes  of  Edom  shall  be  amazed  "  (Exod.  xv,  15) ;  that  is,  when, 
they  hear  what  Jehovah  has  done  to  Pharaoh.  These  dukes,  at 
least  a  great  part  of  them,  were  contemporary  with  Moses,  and  lived 
at  the  same  time  with  one  or  more  of  the  kings  of  Edom,  and  none 
of  them  can  well  belong  to  a  post-Mosaic  period.  Certainly,  they 
could  not  reach  far  beyond  Moses,  for  they  are  too  few. 

In  Gen.  xxxvi,  9-19,  there  is  given  a  list  of  the  dukes  of  Esau — 
his  grandchildren.  This  is  followed  by  a  list  of  important  Horites, 
the  sons  of  Seir,  whom  the  Edomites  drove  out,  as  is  stated  in  Deut. 
i  12.  Then  follow  the  names  of  the  kings  who  reigned  in  Edom 
before  any  king  reigned  over  Israel ;  and  then  come  eleven  dukes 
The  Horites  seem  to  have  been  driven  out  by  the  grandsons  of 
Esau,  probably  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  years  before 
Israel  entered  Canaan. 

Eight  elected  kings,  beginning  with  the  subjugation  of  the  Horites, 
would  extend  to  about  the  same  period.  There  is  a 

.  .         .  Hadarand  Mo- 

strong  probability,  if  not  a  certainty,  that  Hadar,  the  ses  contempo- 
eighth  king,  was  a  contemporary  of  the  author  of  the  rary' 
Pentateuch,  as  no  mention  is  made  of  his  death  ;  while  of  the  other 
kings  it  is  said  that  they  died,  and,  what  is  remarkable,  the  name  of 
not  only  Hadar's  wife,  but  of  her  mother  and  grandfather,  is  given. 
This  last  is  not  done  in  the  case  of  any  other  of  these  kings,  and  it 
VOL.  I— 11 


162  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

shows  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  last  of  the  eight ;  and 
such  accurate  knowledge  Moses,  being  a  contemporary,  and  in  close 
proximity  with  him,  could  have  easily  obtained.  We  know  that 
Hadar  *  was  not  the  last  king  of  Edom,  for  mention  is  made  of  a 
king  of  Edom  in  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Kings  iii),  and  of  the 
king's  seed  (i  Kings  xi,  14)  in  the  time  of  Solomon. 

The  monarchy  of  the  Edomites  at  the  time  of  the  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  elective,8  certainly  not  hereditary ;  but  in  the 
time  of  David  and  Solomon  it  was  hereditary :  for  when  Joab 
slew  all  the  male  Edomites,  Hadad,  of  the  king's  seed,  was  raised 
up  to  be  an  adversary  of  Solomon,  doubtless  by  attempting  to  cause 
a  revolt  of  Edom  from  Solomon  in  favour  of  himself,  the  heir  of 
the  throne  of  Edom.  As  Hadar  belonged  to  an  elective  monarchy 
— a  strong  proof  of  his  great  antiquity — and  was  evidently  a  con 
temporary  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  have  another  proof  of 
the  very  early  composition  of  this  work.  Certainly,  all  the  kings  of 
Edom  in  Gen.  xxxvi,  31-39,  lived  before  the  time  of  Saul,  and  this  fact 
itself  carries  back  the  Pentateuch  at  least  to  the  days  of  the  judges. 
But  if  the  Pentateuch  existed  at  that  time,  it  must  have  been  written 
in  the  Mosaic  age,  for  it  could  not  have  been  composed  in  such  an 
age  as  that  of  the  Judges. 

The  incident  mentioned  in  chap,  xxxvi,  24,  in  naming  the  Ho- 
incidentai  rites,  "This  was  that  Anah  that  found  the  warm  springs 
Sanity  of  the  (English  version  erroneously,  mules)  in  the  desert,  as  he 
Pentateuch.  fed  the  asses  of  Zibeon  his  father,"  indicates  such  an 
intimate  knowledge  of  these  early  times  as  a  late  writer  could  not 
have  possessed. 

The  language  employed  by  Joseph  in  his  request  to  the  chief 
butler  has  been  thought  to  indicate  a  post-Mosaic  age :  "  For  in 
deed  I  was  stolen  away  out  of  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  "  (Gen. 

1  It  has  been  suggested  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  that  this  Hadar 
(called  Hadad  in  I  Chron.  i,  50,  51)  is  the  same  that  is  mentioned  as  the  adversary 
of  Solomon  (i  Kings  xi,  14).  But  in  Gen.  xxxvi,  31,  it  is  stated  that  the  kings  there 
named  reigned  before  there  was  any  king  in  Israel ;  therefore,  before  the  time  of 
Saul.  When  Joab,  in  the  time  of  David,  slew  all  the  males  of  Edom,  Hadad,  being 
yet  a  little  child,  fled  with  others  into  Egypt  about  forty  years  before  he  became 
the  adversary  of  Solomon,  Edom,  in  the  meanwhile,  being  subject  to  the  Jewish  kings. 
The  Hadar  in  Genesis  reigned  instead  of  Baal-hanan,  while  the  Hadad  in  i  Kings 
seems  never  to  have  reigned  at  all,  as  Edom  continued  subject  to  the  Jewish  monarrhs  ; 
and  if  he  had,  in  whose  stead  would  it  have  been  ?  The  whole  history  of  the  Edom 
ites  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon,  as  compared  with  the  statement,  in  Genesis 
xxxvi,  31-39,  completely  refutes  the  idea  that  the  Hadar  of  Genesis  is  the  same  as 
the  Hadad  of  I  Kings. 

"This  clearly  appears  from  the  list  of  the  kings,  Gen.  xxxvi,  31-39. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  163 

xl,  15).  To  object  to  this  language  on  the  ground  that  it  supposes 
that  the  children  of  Israel  had  already  taken  possession  of  Canaan, 
is  at  least  hypercritical.  For  "  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  "  is  equiva 
lent  to  "the  land  where  the  Hebrews  dwell,"  as  they  were  then 
dwelling  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  Perhaps  this  appears  more  clearly 
from  the  use  of  the  article  "the  Hebrews."  If  we  were  to  call 
Frankfort-on-the-Main  "the  city  of  the  Rothschilds,"  that  would 
simply  mean  that  they  were  born  or  live  there,  not  that  the  whole 
city  belongs  to  them,  and  that  nobody  else  lives  there.  And  we 
may  illustrate  this  usage  from  Scripture.  God  says  to  Abraham, 
"  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country  "  (Gen.  xii,  i),  that  is,  out  of  Mesopo 
tamia,  though  he  owned  little  or  none  of  it.  And  Jacob  says  to 
Laban,  "  Send  me  away  .  .  .  that  I  may  go  to  my  country,"  that  is, 
Canaan  (Gen.  xxx,  25). 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  that  the  passage,  "  And  the  chil 
dren  of  Israel  did  eat  manna  forty  years,  until  they  came  Objection 
to  a  land  inhabited ;  they  did  eat  manna,  until  they  S^SJ^S 
came  unto  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan  "  (Exod.  the  manna, 
xvi.  35),  could  not  have  been  written  by  Moses,  since  the  manna 
did  not  cease  until  the  children  of  Israel  had  crossed  the  Jordan 
and  encamped  in  Gilgal  (Josh,  v,  12).  But  it  must  be  observed  that 
the  Hebrew  iy,  until,  does  not  always  mark  a  final  limit,  but  occa 
sionally  a  first  limit.  We  may  say  in  English,  "Farewell  until  we 
meet  again;"  or  in  German,  "Auf  wieder sehen ;  "  or  in  French,  "Au 
revoir"  But  this  does  not  imply  that  we  have  no  concern  afterward 
about  the  person  addressed.  The  passage  in  Exodus  says  not  a 
word  about  the  cessation  of  the  wanna ;  nor  does  it  state  definitely 
how  long  it  continued.  But  in  Joshua  v,  n,  12,  we  have  a  very 
definite  statement :  '*  And  they  did  eat  of  the  old  corn  of  the  land 
on  the  morrow  after  the  passover.  .  .  .  And  the  manna  ceased  on 
the  morrow  after  they  had  eaten  of  the  old  com  of  the  land ;  neither 
had  the  children  of  Israel  manna  any  more ;  but  they  did  eat  of  the 
fruit  of  the  land  of  Canaan  that  year."  If  the  passage  in  the  Penta 
teuch  respecting  the  continuance  of  the  manna  had  been  written 
after  the  Mosaic  age,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  it  would  have 
stated  definitely  where  the  manna  ceased  to  fall.  When  Moses  was 
about  to  die,  on  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  Israelites 
had  been  fed  with  manna  forty  years,  and  he  must  have  known  that 
the  manna  would  cease  upon  their  entering  Canaan,  so  that  he  made 
an  indefinite  statement  respecting  it,  simply  asserting  that  it  con 
tinued  to  fall  until  the  Israelites  reached  the  borders  of  Canaan. 
The  Jordan  could  be  called  the  border  (nvp)  of  Canaan,  just  as  the 
Arnon,  forming  the  boundary  between  the  Moabites  and  the  Amo- 


164  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

rites,  is  called  the  border*  of  Moab  (Num.  xxi,  13).  The  seashore  is 
also  called  nyp,  border  of  the  sea  (Josh,  xv,  2).  In  the  close  of  the 
book  of  Numbers  it  is  said  :  "  These  are  the  commandments  and  the 
judgments,  which  the  Lord  commanded,  by  the  hand  of  Moses,  unto 
the  children  of  Israel  in  the  plains  of  Moab  by  Jordan  near  Jericho."'' 
In  close  connexion  with  the  preceding  statement  respecting  the 
'objection  manna,  it  is  said  :  "Now  an  omer  is  the  tenth  of  an 
pSanation  "of  ePnah-"  This  has  been  thought  to  indicate  a  post- 
sizeofomer.  Mosaic  age,  inasmuch  as  it  is  an  explanation.  Some 
critics  have  regarded  the  omer  (Heb.  "iD5,  Sept.  gomor)  to  be  the 
name  of  a  vessel,  the  same  as  the  Arabic  gomer,  a  cup.  Both  Gese- 
nius  and  Fiirst  define  the  word  to  mean  both  a  measure  and  a  sheaf. 
This  is  a  strange  combination  of  meanings.  The  statement  respect 
ing  the  size  of  the  omer  may  have  been  made  on  one  of  two  grounds 
—  either  because  it  was  a  measure  previously  unknown,  or  but  little 
known,  to  the  Israelites  ;  and,  therefore,  Moses,  in  giving  the  Israel 
ites  a  command  respecting  the  quantity  of  manna  each  one  is  to 
gather,  defines  its  capacity  ;  or  because,  being  generally  unknown  in 
the  post-Mosaic  age,  it  was  added  to  the  original  account  as  an  ex 
planation.  No  mention  is  made  of  the  omer  until  the  giving  of  the 
manna;  and,  except  in  Exodus  xvi,  16,  18,  22,  32,  33,  36,  it  is  no 
where  found  in  the  Bible  in  the  sense  of  a  measure.'  But  the  ephah^ 
of  which  the  omer  is  a  tenth,  occurs  in  various  places  from  Exodus 
to  Ezekiel.  Gesenius  regards  the  word  ephah  (riD'x)  as  of  Egyptian 
origin.  Then,  of  course,  it  was  already  known  to  the  Israelites,  who 
had  come  out  of  Egypt.  And  this  seems  to  have  been  the  standard 
measure  of  reference  in  the  Mosaic  legislation,  for  we  have  numer 
ous  passages  4  in  which  the  tenth  of  an  ephah  is  expressed  simply  by 
p-VBP,  a  tenth,  and  the  omer  is  left  entirely  out  of  sight.  This  may 
be  illustrated  by  an  analogous  case.  The  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,  or 
the  holy  shekel,  seems  to  have  been  unknown  previously  to  the  exodus, 
for  Moses  defines  its  weight  :  "  Twenty  gerahs  (beans,  kernels)  shall 
be  the  shekel  "  (Lev.  xxvii,  25)  ;  and  the  number  of  gerahs  to  the 
shekel  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  addition  of  a  later  age,  for  it  seems 
to  occur  nowhere  out  of  the  Pentateuch  except  in  Ezekiel  xlv,  12, 


is  here  used  for  border. 
«  In  the  account  of  the  manna,  it  is  stated  that  it  resembled  coriander  seed.    This 
comparison  was  very  natural,  for,  according  to  Pliny,  the  coriander  was  a  noted 
production  of  Egypt,  and  the  Israelites  who  had  come  out  of  Egypt  must  have  been 
familiar  with  it. 

3  In  Leviticus  xxiii,  and-  in  a  few  other  passages,  it  has  the  sense  of  sheaj  ",  of 
hand  ftd  of  grain. 

4  Especially  in  Leviticus.     See  chaps,  xiv,  xxiii,  et  al. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  165 

which  is  evidently  based  on  passages  in  the  Pentateuch.  There  is 
no  serious  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  statement  respecting  the 
size  of  the  omer  was  really  written  by  Moses.  But  if  the  explan 
atory  remark  was  made  in  a  post-Mosaic  age,  when  the  size  of  the 
omer  was  generally  unknown,  it  shows  the  antiquity  of  the  account 
of  the  manna. 

The  pot  into  which  the  omer  of  manna  was  to  be  put  for  a  me 
morial  is  called  ruyjy,  which  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible — 

TT|« 

certainly  a  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  record. 

The  occurrence  in  the  Pentateuch  of  the  name  Hebron,  a  cele 
brated  city  in  Southern  Palestine,  has  been  thought  by  Difflculty  ^^ 
many  to  be  post-Mosaic,  since  it  is  stated  both  in  Josh,  cerning  H&- 
xiv,  15,  and  in  Judg.  i,  10,  that,  before  the  town  was 
captured  by  the  Israelites,  its  name  was  Kirjath-arba.  But  it  is  evi 
dent  that  Kirjath-arba  was  not  the  most  ancient  name  of  the  town  ;  for 
it  is  stated  immediately  in  connexion  with  this  name  Kirjath-arba  (city 
of  Arba),  "  which  Arba  was  a  great  man  among  the  Anakim  "  (Joshua 
xiv,  15).  Now,  in  the  days  of  Abram,  there  were  no  Anakim  in  He 
bron  ;  but  Mamre  the  Amorite,  brother  of  Eshcol  and  of  Aner,  dwelt 
there,  with  whom  Abram  was  confederate  (Gen.  xiv,  13).  In  Gen. 
xiii,  1 8,  it  is  called  the  "plain  of  Mamre,  which  is  in  Hebron." 
Hence  it  is  impossible  that  the  town  could  have  had  the  name  of 
Kirjath-arba  in  the  time  of  Abram.  But  when  Moses  sent  spies  to 
search  out  the  land  of  Canaan  they  found  the  Anakim  already  in 
Hebron.  Consequently  the  name  Kirjath-arba  was  given  the  city 
some  time  between  the  age  of  Abraham  and  the  exodus.  Although 
Abraham  called  the  city  Hebron  (Alliance)  in  commemoration  of 
his  alliance  with  Mamre,  Aner,  and  Eshcol,  and  it  was  called  Mamre 
by  others,  yet  the  Anakim  naturally  changed  the  name  to  Kirjath- 
arba,  (city  of  Arba)  after  the  name  of  a  great  man  among  them 
But  Hebron  being  the  name  by  which  Abraham  and  his  descend 
ants  in  Egypt  probably  called  it,  the  Israelites,  after  conquering  it, 
very  naturally  restored  to  it  the  old  name,  as  in  the  case  of  Bethel. 
That  Hebron  was  already  a  town  in  the  time  of  Abraham  is  evi 
dent ;  for  it  is  stated  in  Num.  xiii,  22,  that  Hebron  was  built  seven 
years  before  Zoan  in  Egypt,  and  we  have  proof  that  Zoan  existed 
as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Abraham.  In  speaking  of  the  great 
temple  of  Zoan,  Wilkinson '  remarks  :  "  The  temple  not  only  bears 
the  names  of  kings  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  dynasty  [B.  C. 
2000]  ;  it  existed,  according  to  M.  Mariette,  in  the  time  of  the  sixth  " 
[B.  C.  2200].  What  accurate  knowledge  is  here  displayed  by  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  notice  of  the  building  of  Hebron 
1  Hand-book  of  Egypt,  pp.  219,  220. 


166  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

and  Zoan — the  latter  of  which  was  one  of  the  capitals  of  Egypt  in 
the  days  of  Moses,  and  situated  on  the  borders  of  Goshen !  And 
who  was  so  likely  to  possess  this  accurate  knowledge  as  Moses, 
skilled  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians  ?  And  in  giving  this  exact 
statement  the  place  is  called  Hebron.  Besides,  the  following  is  very 
natural  language  if  written  by  one  outside  of  the  Promised  Land : 
"  Abraham  buried  Sarah  his  wife  in  the  cave  of  the  field  of  Mach- 
pelah  l  before  Mamre  :  the  same  is  Hebron  in  the  land  of  Canaan  " 
(Gen.  xxiii,  19).  Also  we  have:  "  Kirjath-arba:  the  same  is  Hebron 
in  the  land  of  Canaan  "  (ch.  xxiii,  2).  Outside  of  the  Pentateuch  it  is 
nowhere  stated  that  Hebron  is  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  to  writers 
in  Palestine  the  language  would  be  unnatural,  as  everybody  knew 
where  it  was ;  but  it  is  called  simply  Hebron.  In  Num.  xiii,  22,  no  ad 
dition  is  made  to  define  its  locality,  for  that  is  clear  from  the  context. 

In  Numbers  xxi,  14,  mention  is  made  of  "  t/ie  book  of  the  wars  of 
Book  of  the  Jchwah"  which  some  think  to  be  post-Mosaic.  But 
wars  of  Je-  surely  there  was  ample  time  before  the  death  of  Moses 
for  the  composing  and  writing  of  a  poem  which  would 
give  a  sketch  of  the  wars  of  Israel.  The  events  to  which  allu 
sion  is  made  in  Numbers  xxi,  14,  15,  occurred  six  months  or 
more  before  the  death  of  Moses,  and  they  could  easily  have  been 
added  to  the  book  of  the  wars  of  Jehovah,  and  have  been  referred 
to  by  Moses.  The  song  sung  by  Moses  and  the  Israelites  on  the 
drowning  of  Pharaoh  was  incorporated  into  the  Pentateuch  (Exod. 
xv,  1-19).  We  have  also  in  Num.  xxi,  27-30,  a  quotation  from  one 
of  the  songs  current  in  the  last  part  of  the  Exodus,  prefaced  with 
the  following  remark :  "  Wherefore  the  poets  say,  Come  into  Hesh- 
bon,  let  the  city  of  Sihon  be  built  and  established." 

The  reference  to  what  is  contained  in  the  book  of  the  wars  of  Je 
hovah  is  obscure,  and  the  English  translation  of  the  passage  is  er 
roneous.  The  Hebrew  may  be  rendered  thus  : — 

Vaheb  (He  took)  in  a  storm 
And  the  streams  of  the  Arnon. 
And  the  outpouring  of  the  streams 
Which  turn  to  the  dwelling  of  Ar; 
And  lie  near  the  border  of  Moab. 

The  preceding  quotations  of  poems  in  the  Pentateuch,  celebrating 
the  events  of  the  exodus,  give  a  strong  confirmation  to  the  Mosaic 
history. 

1  The  cave  of  Machpelah,  now  covered  by  a  mosque,  is  on  the  extreme  east  of 
Hebron,  which  lies  below  in  the  valley,  "before  Mamre,"  or  Hebron.  See  the 
author's  Journey  to  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land,  p.  134. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  167 

Portions  of  the  prophecy  of  Balaam  (Num.  xxiv)  have  been  thought 
by  some  to  contain  internal  evidence  of  a  post-Mosaic  age.  In 
predicting  the  future  power  of  Israel  he  says:  "His  king  ;shall  be 
greater  than  Agag."  This  has  been  referred  by  a  cer-  Agag?agenerlc 
tain  class  of  critics,  and  even  Bleek  among  them,  to  the  title  for  Ama- 
Agag  mentioned  in  i  Sam.  xv,  who  was  captured  by 
Saul  and  slain  by  Samuel ;  and  consequently  the  prophecy  was 
composed  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Saul.  But  there  is  strong 
probability  that  Agag  was  the  common  title  of  the  kings  of  Amalek, 
and  Gesenius  gives  the  word  as  the  name  of  several  of  them.  Ftirst 
remarks,  under  JJN',  Agag,  "  This  name  of  the  Amalekite  kings  may 

have  existed  before  the  time  of  Samuel;  "  and  Josephus  and  Jewish 
tradition  explain  Agagite  in  Esther  iii,  i,  as  an  Amalekite  by  birth. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  language  to  require  a  reference  to  the  Agag 
of  Samuel.  When  the  prophecy  was  delivered  Amalek  was  called 
the  first  of  the  nations.  This  was  not  true  of  the  time  of  Samuel; 
nor  would  there  be  much  force  in  the  declaration  that  the  king  of 
Israel  would  be  greater  than  Agag,  if  the  king  of  that  name  de 
stroyed  by  Samuel  be  referred  to.  But  there  are  portions  of  the 
prophecy  which  carry  us  down  to  the  Assyrian,  Greek,  and  Roman 
periods.  For  example  :  "  The  Kenite  shall  be  destroyed  until  Asshur 
[Assyria]  shall  carry  thee  away  captive."  Here  we  have  a  reference 
to  the  times  of  Shalmaneser  and  Sennacherib :  "  And  ships  shall 
come  from  the  coast  of  Chittim  [the  regions  of  Greece]  and  afflict 
Assyria,  and  shall  afflict  Eber  "  [the  Hebrews].  Here  we  have  ref 
erence  to  the  overthrow  of  the  great  Asiatic  power  by  Alexander 
the  Great  (about  B.  C.  330),  and  the  subversion  of  the  Jewish  State 
by  the  Romans  (A.  D.  70).  Was  the  prophecy  of  Balaam  written 
after  all  these  events  ?  No  one  will  assert  that.  The  passages  are 
found  in  the  Samaritan  text,  which  cannot  be  later  than  B.  C.  400,  and 
in  the  Septuagint  B.  C.  280,  as  well  as  in  the  common  Hebrew  text 
"  These  are  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  beyond 
(n???)  Jordan  in  the  wilderness  "  (Deut.  i,  i).  Also  in  objection  to 
verse  5  :  "Beyond  Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Moab."  The 
opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  regard  daV 
this  language  as  that  of  a  writer  whose  standpoint  is  west  of  the  Jor 
dan  in  the  land  of  Canaan ;  for  to  such  a  writer  only,  they  contend, 
could  the  tract  east  of  the  river  be  called  beyond  Jordan.  The  real 
question  here  is,  Was  the  tract  east  of  the  river  called  by  the  Israel 
ites  already,  in  the  Mosaic  age,  beyond  Jordan?  This  is  in  the  high 
est  degree  probable,  for  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  even  before  the 
time  of  Abraham,  in  all  probability,  called  the  region  east  of  the  Jor 
dan,  beyond  Jordan.  Abraham,  in  adopting  the  language  of  the  Ca- 


168  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

naanites,  would  use  the  same  phraseology.  At  all  events,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  had  sojourned  long  enough  in  Canaan  to  give  the 
territory  east  of  the  Jordan  the  name  beyond  Jordan,  and  this  phrase 
ology  they  would  naturally  carry  with  them  into  Egypt,  and  bring 
back  with  them.  Josephus  calls  the  country  beyond  Jordan,  Peraea  ' 
(from  Trcpov,  beyond].  And  it  is  well  known  that  Caesar9  calls  that 
part  of  Gaul  between  Rome  and  the  Alps  "  Hither  Gaul,"  and 
the  part  beyond  the  Alps  "  Farther  Gaul,"  although  to  him,  now 
waging  war  in  Farther  Gaul,  this  latter  region  was  really  Hither 
Gaul. 

But,  after  all,  it  is  clear  from  various  passages  that  the  country 
between  the  Jordan  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea  was  also  called  beyond 
Jordan.  In  Deut.  iii,  20,  25  ;  xi,  30, 13J73  has  this  meaning ;  and  in 
Num.  xxxii,  19,  we  have  "\3yVjfrom  beyond,  applied  to  both  sides  of  the 
Jordan :  "  For  we  will  not  inherit  with  them  beyond  Jordan  and 
farther,  because  our  inheritance  is  fallen  to  us  beyond  Jordan  east 
ward."  Here  the  last  word  is  added  to  distinguish  the  country 
east  from  that  west  of  the  river.  We  also  find  the  country  west 
of  the  Jordan  called  beyond  Jordan  in  Josh,  v,  i ;  xii,  7  ;  xxii,  7.  With 
good  reason,  then,  does  Fiirst  explain  the  phrase,  pTn  "oy,  beyond  Jor- 
dan,  as  used  for  both  sides  of  the  Jordan.  He  defines  "GJ7  as  bank-land. 

In  view  of  these  facts  there  is  scarcely  the  shadow  of  an  argument 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  use  of  the  phrase, 
"beyond  Jordan." 

In  Deut.  ii,  12,  in  reference  to  the  children  of  Esau  having  dis- 
passages  sup-  possessed  the  Horites,  it  is  said:  They  " dwelt  in  their 
catef  a°  post  stead  ;  as  Israel  did  unto  the  land  of  his  possession,  which 
Mosaic  age.  the  Lord  gave  unto  them."  This  passage  has  been  sup 
posed  by  some  to  have  been  written  after  the  children  of  Israel  had 
driven  out  the  Canaanites.  But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  when 
this  language  was  attributed  to  Moses,  the  country  east  of  the  Jor 
dan  had  already  been  subdued,  and  given  to  Reuben,  Gad,  and  to 
the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  (Num.  xxxii,  33),  and  Moses  knew  that 
the  Canaanites  would  also  be  dispossessed.  But  such  language  could 
be  used  without  any  reference  to  the  Canaanites,  even  if  the  con 
quests  and  inheritance  of  the  Israelites  had  been  limited  by  the 
Jordan.  But,  further,  there  is  no  necessity  for  rendering  the  passage 
in  the  absolutely  past  tense,  for  the  preterite  of  the  Hebrew  is  used 
also  for  the  present  and  the  future.8  The  preterite  and  the  future 

1  Antiq.,  636,  et  al.     This  was  the  common  name  of  the  trans-Jordanic  territory. 

8  In  his  Commentaries. 

8  See  Roediger's  Gesenius,  Heb.  Gram.,  p.  224. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  169 

being  the  only  tenses  in  the  language,  are  used  in  a  wider  sense  than 
the  same  tenses  are  in  the  western  languages.  Hence  we  can  render 
the  passage,  without  doing  violence  to  the  original,  thus  :  "  As  Is 
rael  does  to  the  land  of  his  possession,  which  the  Lord  gives  unto 
them." 

The  following  passage,  also,  has  been  thought  to  indicate  a  post- 
Mosaic  age :  "  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh  took  all  the  country  of  Ar- 
gob  unto  the  coasts  of  Geshuri  and  Maachathi;  and  called  them 
after  his  own  name,  Bashan-havoth-jair,  unto  this  day  "  (Deut. 
iii,  14).  In  Judges  x,  3,  4,  mention  is  made  of  a  Jair  who  judged  Is 
rael  twenty-two  years,  and  who  "  had  thirty  sons  that  rode  on  thirty 
ass  colts,  and  they  had  thirty  cities,  which  are  called  Havoth-jair 
unto  this  day,  which  are  in  the  land  of  Gilead."  Some  have  supposed 
that  this  Jair  is  the  one  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy,  transferred  by 
mistake  to  the  Mosaic  age.  So  far  as  the  genuineness  of  the  Penta 
teuch  is  concerned,  all  that  is  necessary  here  is  to  show  that  the 
statements  respecting  Jair  in  Deuteronomy  are  historical  facts,  be 
longing  to  the  Mosaic  age. 

In  Numbers  xxxii,  40,  41,  we  find  a  confirmation  of  the  passage  in 
Deuteronomy :  "  And  Moses  gave  Gilead  unto  Machir  The  Jalrg  ln 
the  son  of  Manasseh ;  and  he  dwelt  therein.  And  Jair  Judges  and  in 
the  son  of  Manasseh  went  and  took  the  small  towns  founded  by 
thereof,  and  called  them  Havoth-jair  "  (villages  of  Jair).  false  criticism. 
In  Joshua  xiii,  30,  after  speaking  of  the  inheritance  which  Moses 
gave  to  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  it  is  added :  "  All  the  towns  of 
Jair,  which  are  in  Bashan,  threescore  cities."  We  also  find  in  i  Chron, 
ii,  21-23,  a  confirmation  of  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy,  where  it  is 
stated  that  Segub,  a  brother  of  Caleb,  "  begat  Jair,  who  had  three 
and  twenty  cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead.  And  he  took  Geshur,  and 
Aram,  with  the  towns  of  Jair,  from  them,  with  Kenath,  and  the 
towns  thereof,  even  threescore  cities."  The  Jair  named  in  Judges 
x,  3-5,  who  governed  Israel,  is  evidently  a  different  one  from  that 
mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  there  is  nothing  strange  in  there 
being  a  second  Jair,  a  descendant  of  the  first  mentioned,  and  bear 
ing  his  name.  The  villages  possessed  by  Jair's  sons  (Judg.  x,  4)  are 
called  Havoth-jair;  but  it  is  not  stated  that  they  are  so  called  for 
the  first  time. 

It  is  stated  in  Deut.  iii,  14.  that  the  villages  are  called  "  Bashan-ha 
voth-jair  unto  this  day"  This  expression,  in  several  places 
.          J  .  <  '  .       .  .        Objection      to 

in  Deuteronomy,  is  regarded  by  some  as  indicating  quite   the  term  "unto 

a  long  period  intervening  between  the  events  and  the   thisday-" 
time  of  the  writer.     But  in  every  instance  in  Deuteronomy  in  which 
"  unto  this  day  "  is  used,  except  the  one  relating  to  Havoth-jair, 


170  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

twenty-eight  years,  at  least,  had  elapsed.  In  the  middle  books  of 
the  Pentateuch  the  phrase  nowhere  occurs.  It  is  impossible  for  us 
to  fix  the  minimum  interval  to  which  the  language  can  be  applied. 
In  Joshua  xxii,  17,  it  is  used  to  express  an  interval  of,  apparently, 
about  eight  years. 

The  only  instance  in  which  the  use  of  the  expression  unto  this  day 
can  create  any  difficulty,  is  the  passage  to  which  we  have  already  al 
luded  in  Deut.  iii,  14,  that  Jair  called  the  villages  "after  his  own 
name,  Bashan-havoth-jair,  unto  this  day."  In  Numbers  xxxii,  41, 
it  is  simply  stated  that  he  "called  them  Havoth-jair."  It  could  not 
have  been  more  than  a  year,  perhaps  was  less,  after  the  conquest  and 
naming  of  these  villages  that  the  discourse  in  Deuteronomy  was  de 
livered,  so  that  less  than  a  year,  in  all  probability,  intervened  respect 
ing  which  it  is  said  that  he  called  them  "  Bashan-havoth-jair  unto  this 
day."  But  the  passage  simply  means  that  Jair  gave  these  villages  his 
own  name,  by  which  they  are  now  called,  the  name  having  perma 
nently  adhered  to  them.  The  improbability  of  this  meaning  cannot 
be  shown. 

There  is  something  apparently  singular  in  the  use  of  "  unto  this 
day  "  in  Gen.  xix,  37,  where  it  is  said,  "  the  same  is  the  father  of 
the  Moabites  unto  this  day ;  "  and  especially  in  Deut.  xi,  3,  4,  in 
which,  after  an  enumeration  of  the  mighty  acts  of  God  in  punishing 
the  Egyptians,  it  is  added,  "  how  the  Lord  hath  destroyed  them 
unto  this  day"  The  events  to  which  reference  is  here  made  oc 
curred  in  the  space  of  a  month  or  two,  and  forty  years  before  the 
address  of  Moses  was  delivered;  and  the  phrase  unto  this  day  must 
mean  simply  in  time  past,  or  in  the  time  preceding  this  day.  As  Moses 
wa.;  about  to  leave  the  Israelites,  he  takes  a  survey  of  the  affairs  of 
his  people,  describes  the  present  condition  of  things,  and  is  thus  led 
to  use  the  expression  "  unto  this  day  "  in  various  places. 

The  directions  respecting  the  future  king  of  Israel  (Deut.  xvii, 
14-20)  have  been  regarded  by  some1  as  written  after  the  people  had 
Objections  a  king,  since  it  was  contrary  to  the  divine  will  that  they 

against  the di-  should  have  one,  and  according  to  i  Sam.  viii,  7,  there 
rections  con-  .  .  r  T  .  ...._.  .  . 

corning  future  was  a  rejection  ot  Jehovah  himself  in  asking  for  one. 
kingof Israel.  gut  thjs  argument  is  utterly  unsound.  For  it  was 
foreseen  of  God,  and  even  promised,  that  kings  should  spring 
from  the  posterity  of  Jacob;  and  Deuteronomy  prescribes  certain 
regulations  for  the  king  that  they  might  set  over  them.  It  may, 
however,  be  objected  that  Deuteronomy,  to  be  consistent  with 
i  Sam.  viii,  7,  ought  absolutely  to  have  prohibited  the  Israelites 
from  having  a  king.  But  in  this  objection  there  would  be  no  force, 
1  Among  others,  by  Bleek,  p.  216. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  171 

for  God  does  allow  them  to  have  a  king  (i  Sam.  viii,  22).  Is  it  not 
the  part  of  wisdom  to  make  regulations  for  events  that  are  certain 
to  arise  ?  And  though  it  had  been  better  had  they  never  occurred, 
yet,  under  the  circumstances,  the  absolute  prohibition  would  work 
a  greater  evil. 

But,  further,  the  demand  of  the  Israelites  to  have  a  king  was  a 
rejection  of  Samuel,  and  also  a  rejection  of  Jehovah,  who  had  ap 
pointed  Samuel  to  be  their  judge.  It  was  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Mosaic  economy,  and  with  the  theocracy,  to  have  a  king  subordinate 
to  God.  For,  had  that  been  the  case,  God  would  not  have  granted 
their  request  at  all.  The  people  sinned  in  rebelling  against  the  ex 
isting  arrangement  and  the  appointed  ruler,  instead  of  waiting  to  be 
directed  by  the  Almighty.  The  Israelites,  in  Deuteronomy  xvii,  15, 
are  charged  :  "  Thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over  thee,  whom 
the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose."  We  find  this  law  complied  with 
by  Samuel;  and  God  chose  Saul  (i  Sam.  x,  24).  Samuel  also  "told 
the  people  the  manner  of  the  kingdom,  and  wrote  it  in  a  book,  and 
laid  it  up  before  the  Lord."  In  this  there  seems  to  be  Directions  con- 

a  reference  to  the  regulations  in  Dent,  xvii,  14-20,  re-   cerning  kings 

_    .         .  .  based   on  cer- 

specting  the  future  king,  and  the  language  of  the  elders   tainty  of  future 

of  Israel  to  Samuel,  "Now  make  us  a  king  to  judge  us  facts* 
like  all  the  nations,"  is  very  similar  to  i  Sam.  viii,  5. 

In  Deut.  xvii,  18,  the  future  king  is  directed  to  "write  him  a  copy 
of  this  law  in  a  book  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  priests  the 
Levites."  Now,  at  whatever  time  this  part 1  of  Deuteronomy  may 
be  supposed  to  have  been  forged,  it  must  have  been  immediately  de 
tected  as  spurious,  since  no  former  king  would  have  known  anything 
of  it,  nor  would  it  in  former  times  have  been  in  the  ark. 

But  the  legislation  in  this  seventeenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy 
presupposes  that  the  shophet,  judge,  is  the  highest  officer  of  the  peo 
ple  in  the  land  of  Canaan  :  "  And  thou  shalt  come  unto  the  priests 
the  Levites,  and  unto  i\\Q  judges  that  shall  be  in  those  days,  and  in- 
quire  "  (ver.  9).  In  the  regulations  respecting  the  king  it  is  en 
joined  that  "  he  shall  not  multiply  horses  to  himself,  nor  cause  the 
people  to  return  to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he  should  multiply 
horses."  The  ground  of  this  prohibition  is  given:  "Forasmuch  as 
the  Lord  hath  said  unto  you,  Ye  shall  henceforth  return  no  more 
that  way."  This  language  is  natural  enough  in  Moses,  for  he  might 
fear  a  return  to  Egypt  of  the  people  who  had  just  left  it ;  but  in  the 
ages  of  the  kings  such  a  fear  could  not  be  entertained.  In  i  Kings 
iv,  26,  we  find  that  "  Solomon  had  forty  thousand  stalls  of  horses  for 

1  It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  from  one  author. 


172  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

his  chariots."  As  he  had  no  intention  of  conducting  the  people 
back  to  Egypt,  he,  perhaps,  considered  himself  justified;  and  there 
would  be  some  ground  for  this  view.  In  a  similar  manner  we  violate 
the  letter  of  the  second  commandment,  which  prohibits  the  making 
of  any  image.  But  we  take  it  in  connexion  with  what  follows,  and 
interpret  accordingly:  "Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  to  them  nor  wor 
ship  them."  Whence  we  infer  that  the  making  the  image  with  no 
idolatrous  purpose  is  not  sinful.  He  is  further  enjoined :  "  Neither 
shall  he  multiply  wives  to  himself,  that  his  heart  turn  not  away; 
neither  shall  he  greatly  multiply  to  himself  silver  and  gold."  The 
reason  for  the  last  prohibition  doubtless  was,  that  in  such  a  case 
he  would  impoverish  the  people ;  but  the  obtaining  of  gold  for  the 
enriching  of  his  people  might  not  be  forbidden  the  king. 

That  Solomon  departed  from  the  Mosaic  regulations  in  some 
Solomon's  de-  things  is  not  to  be  wondered  at;  and,  indeed,  we  are 
EicereguiS  informed  that  he  built  "a  high  place  for  Chemosh,  the 
tions.  abomination  of  Moab,  .  .  .  and  for  Moloch,  the  abomi 

nation  of  the  children  of  Ammon  "  (i  Kings  xi,  7).  But  these  de 
partures  from  Deuteronomy,  and  in  part  from  the  very  fundamental 
principle  of  the  Mosaic  religion,  do  not  prove  that  Deuteronomy 
had  no  existence  in  the  age  of  Solomon.  On  the  same  principle,  by 
comparing  the  lives  of  some  professed  Christians  with  the  New  Test 
ament,  we  might  infer  its  non-existence.  But  Solomon  alludes  to 
Deuteronomy  in  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple.  (Com 
pare  i  Kings  viii,  29  with  Deut.  xii,  u). 

But  would  any  Israelite  have  forged  the  laws  respecting  the  king 
hundreds  of  years  after  Solomon,  to  condemn  what  he  had  done  ? 
The  supposition  is  preposterous. 

The  objection        jn    Deut.  xix,    14,  it  is   enjoined,  "  Thou   shalt   not 

from  the  prohi-  »       . 

wtion   against   remove  thy  neighbour  s  landmark,  which   they  of  old 

of6  landmarks    time    haVC    Set    in    thine    inneritance»  which    thou    shalt 

considered.  inherit  in  the  land  that  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee  to 
possess  it."  Some  have  considered  this  as  having  been  written 
after  the  Israelites  had  fully  settled  in  Canaan.  But  the  word 
DTJJO,  rendered  "  they  of  old  time,"  can  be  well  translated  "for 
mer  ones."  Is  there  any  inconsistency  in  Moses  giving  a  precept 
of  this  kind  to  be  observed  by  the  Israelites  in  Canaan?  And  if 
given,  what  form  should  it  have  ?  Reference  must  be  made  to  a 
boundary  already  fixed,  for  the  sin  would  lie  in  removing  what  had 
formerly  been  established  as  a  landmark.  And  it  is  expressly  stated 
in  the  passage,  "  In  thine  inheritance,  which  thou  shalt  inherit  in 
the  land  that  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee  to  possess  it.".  Is  it 
possible  that  a  writer  should  contradict  himself  in  the  same  passage, 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  173 

in  one  part  using  language  indicating  that  Israel  had  long  been  in 
Canaan,  and  in  the  other  representing  them  as  having  not  yet  en 
tered  the  land,  and  giving  directions  how  they  should  act  when  they 
should  enter  it  ?  No  writer,  much  less  the  author  of  Deuteronomy, 
could  be  guilty  of  such  stupidity. 

The  regulations  respecting  war  in  Deut.  xx  refer  to  the  future  of 
Israel,  when  they  shall  have  entered  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and  there 
is  nothing  in  them  that  could  not  have  been  written  by  Moses.1 

In  concluding  this  part  of  our  subject  we  may  remark,  that  if  the 
Pentateuch,  comprising  about  one  fourth  of  the  Hebrew  conclusion:  no 
Bible,  and  extending  over  a  period  of  more  than  twenty-  S-ewfcoJ^stl 
five  hundred  years,  had  been  composed  centuries  after  Mosaic  origin. 
Moses,  it  would  have  contained  numerous  palpable  references  to 
post-Mosaic  times.  On  the  contrary,  however,  we  find  no  clear  al 
lusion  to  anything  of  an  age  later  than  that  of  Moses ;  and  the  sup 
posed  allusions  of  that  nature,  upon  examination,  disappear  in  every, 
or  in  almost  every,  case.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  genuineness 
of  the  Pentateuch  to  suppose,  as  we  have  before  stated,  that  a  few 
interpolations  have  found  their  way  into  it,  but  of  this  we  have  proof 
in  hardly  a  single  instance.  The  whole  colouring  and  spirit  of  the 
book  is  Mosaic. 

1  Because  in  the  Pentateuch  n?3\  seaward,  is  used  for  westivard,  and  H23J,  toward 
the  dry  region,  especially  the  southern  part  of  Judah,  for  south,  Robertson  Smith 
affirms  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  Canaan  (p.  323).  But  suppose  Moses 
wrote  or  revised  it  in  the  land  of  Moab,  what  then  ?  The  Mediterranean  Sea  was 
west  of  him,  and  the  south  country  of  Judah  was  south  of  him.  But  how  often  are 
words  used  in  a  sense  different  from  their  primitive  force  !  We  can  say  of  a  Phil 
adelphia  merchant,  he  ships  his  goods  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  just  as  if  a 
sea  lay  between  the  two  cities.  Herodotus  (viii,  60)  speaks  of  yoking  up  ships 
(ava&v-yvvpt),  that  is,  removing  them.  Did  he  think  that  ships  were  a  species  of 
oxen? 


174  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE   SAMARITAN    PENTATEUCH. 

'"PHE  Samaritans  at  Nablus,1  a  remnant  of  the  ancient  sect  of  that 
•*•  name,  have  the  Pentateuch  in  Hebrew,  written  in  very  ancient 
irregular  characters,  and  differing  but  little  from  the  Pentateuch  of 
the  Jews.  In  determining  the  value  of  the  Samaritan  Codex,  and  its 
bearing  on  the  genuineness  of  the  Jewish  Pentateuch,  it  is  necessary, 
first  of  all,  to  inquire,  Who  were  the  Samaritans'!  The  most  ancient 
origin  of  the  account  of  the  origin  of  this  people  is  found  in  2  Kings 
Samaritans.  xvii,  where  it  is  stated  that  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria, 
carried  away  Israel  captive  into  Assyria  (B.C.  721),  "and  placed  them 
in  Halah  and  in  Habor  by  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the 
Medes  ;  "  and  that  "  the  king  of  Assyria  brought  men  from  Babylon, 
and  from  Cuthah,  and  from  Ava,  and  from  Hamath,  and  from  Seph- 
arvaim,  and  placed  them  in  the  cities  of  Samaria  instead  of  the 
children  of  Israel :  and  they  possessed  Samaria,  and  dwelt  in  the 
cities  thereof."  But  it  is  not  likely  that  the  king  of  Assyria  carried  off 
all  the  inhabitants.  The  remnant  of  the  ten  tribes  was  incorporated 
with  the  colonists  of  the  Assyrian  king,  and  thus  the  Samaritans 
became  a  mixed  people.  At  first  they  knew  not  the  God  of  Israel,  and 
lions  were  sent  among  them,  which  slew  some  of  them  (chap,  xvii,  25). 
•Upon  this  the  king  of  Assyria  gave  directions:  "  Carry  thither  one 
of  the  priests  whom  ye  brought  from  thence ;  and  let  them  go  and 
dwell  there,  and  let  him  teach  them  the  manner  of  the  God  of  the 
land"  (ver.  27).  "Then  one  of  the  priests  whom  they  had  car 
ried  away  from  Samaria  came  and  dwelt  in  Bethel,  and  taught  them 
how  they  should  fear  the  Lord "  (ver.  28).  "  They  feared  the 
Lord,  and  served  their  own  gods,  after  the  manner  of  the  nations  " 
from  which  they  had  been  taken.  And  when  the  Jews  returned 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  were  engaged  in  rebuilding  the 
temple,  the  Samaritans  wished  to  take  a  part  in  it,  coming  to  Ze- 
rubbabel  and  to  the  chief  of  the  fathers,  saying:  "  Let  us  build  with 
you  :  for  we  seek  your  God,  as  ye  do ;  and  we  do  sacrifice  unto  him 
since  the  days  of  Esar-haddon  [about  B.  C.  709]  king  of  Assur,  which 

1  In  January,  1870,  the  author  had  an  interview  with  the  high -priest  of  the  sect 
at  Nabl&s,  and  was  told  that  they  numbered  one  hundred  and  fifty.  See  the  au 
thor's  Journey  to  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land,  pp.  183-186. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  175 

brought  us  up  hither  "  (Ezra  iv,  2).  This  request  was  promptly  re 
fused,  as  the  Samaritans  were  for  the  most  part  pure  heathen  '  and 
worshipped  false  gods  along  with  Jehovah.  This  rejection  of  their 
offer  seems  to  have  been  the  source  of  their  hatred  of  the  Jews. 
During  the  reign  of  Alexander  the  Great,  Sanballat,  whose  son-in- 
law,  Manasseh,  was  a  brother  of  Jaddus,  high  priest  at  Jerusalem, 
obtained  permission  from  the  king,  while  engaged  in  the  siege  of 
Tyre  (B.  C.  332),  to  build  a  temple  for  Samaritan  worship  on  Mount 
Gerizim.8  This  Sanballat  executed  with  zeal.  Afterward  the  Jews, 
who  had  become  obnoxious  to  their  brethren  in  Jerusalem  on  ac 
count  of  their  violations  of  law,  took  refuge  among  the  Samaritans.3 
Josephus  informs  us  that  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philo-  Samaritans  in 
meter  (B.  C.  181-146)  the  Samaritans,  who  reverenced  emyp°hiiorai 
the  temple  built  on  Mount  Gerizim  in  the  time  of  Alex-  ter. 
ander  the  Great,  and  the  Jews  had  a  disputation  in  the  presence  of 
the  Egyptian  sovereign  concerning  the  claims  of  their  respective 
temples,  the  Samaritans  affirming  that  the  temple  on  Gerizim  was 
built  according  to  the  Mosaic  law.  The  Jews  denied  this,  estab 
lishing  from  the  law  the  priority  of  their  own  temple  in  Jerusalem, 
and  the  succession  of  the  high  priests  who  had  the  charge  of  it; 
and  showing,  also,  that  the  kings  of  Asia  had  honoured  the  Jewish 
temple  when  that  on  Gerizim  had  no  existence.  The  king  decided 
the  dispute  in  favour  of  the  Jews,  and  put  to  death  the  Samaritan 
disputants.4 

Jesus  son  of  Sirach  (about  B.  C.  180,  or  even  earlier)  expresses  the 
feelings  of  the  Jews  of  that  period  toward  the  Samari-  Testtmony  ot 
tans:  "There  are  two  nations  with  which  my  soul  is  Jesus  son  of 
vexed,  and  the  third  is  no  nation — those  who  dwell  in 
the  mountain  of  Samaria,  the  Philistines,  and  the  foolish  people  who 
dwell  in  Shechem  "6  (Samaritans). 

Josephus 6  observes  that  when  the  Jews  were  in  prosperity  the 
Samaritans  claimed  relationship,  affirming  that  they  were  Testimony  of 
of  the  family  of  Joseph ;  but  that  when  the  Jews  were  JosePnus- 
in  adversity  the  Samaritans  denied  any  affinity  with  them,  declar 
ing  themselves  to  be  foreigners  who  had  migrated  to  Samaria. 
And  we  accordingly  find,  that  when  the  Jews  were  severely 
persecuted  on  account  of  their  religion  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes 

J  The  heathen  element  predominated  most  strongly  in  the  Samaritans.  Heng- 
stenberg  and  others  have  regarded  them  as  purely  heathen.  In  our  visit  to  the 
Samaritans  we  failed  to  distinguish  any  thing  Jewish  in  their  features. 

8  Josephus,  Antiq.,  book  xi,  8,  4.  'Antiq.,  xi,  8,  7. 

*  Antiq.,  xiii,  cap.  iii,  4.  'Cap.  1,  25,  26. 

*  Antiq.,  ix,  cap.  xiv,   3. 


1T3  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

(B.  C.  167),  the  Samaritans,  to  avoid  similar  treatment,  informed 
Antiochus,  that  although  they  kept  the  Jewish  sabbath,  and  had 
been  offering  sacrifices  in  the  temple  built  on  Mount  Gerizim,  this 
edifice  was  nevertheless  not  sacred  to  the  supreme  God,  but  was 
nameless,  and  that  they  were  ready  to  dedicate  it  to  the  Grecian 
Zeus.1  The  feeling  of  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  toward  the 
Samaritans  still  existed  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  as  appears  from 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  turn  was  resented  by  the  Samaritans, 
who  still  looked  upon  the  Jews  as  heretics.  In  an  interview  with 
the  high  priest  of  the  Samaritans  at  Nablus,  I  asked  him  his  opinion 
respecting  Judaism.  He  replied,  that  the  "  Hebrew  prophets  were 
learned  men,  but  not  inspired  ;  that  Solomon  was  the  predicted 
Shiloh,  with  whom  the  sceptre  had  left  Judah,  as  that  monarch  had 
ruined  every  thing  by  his  course  ;  and  that  in  many  things  the  Jews 
The  author's  act  contrary  to  the  divine  law,  and  are  a  species  of  her- 
interview  with  etics."  He  also  stated  that  he  expected  a  Messiah,  and 

the  Samaritan    ,  ...  .  ....  ._  ...          ., 

high  priest        based  his  expectation  principally  upon  Deut.  xvni,  15. 


Amram.  jt  js  evident,  then,  that  the  Samaritans  regard  themselves 

as  the  theocratic  people,  the  regular  successors  to  the  ten  tribes  of 
Israel.  Thus  they  exclude  the  Jews,  from  the  days  of  Solomon, 
with  whom  the  sceptre  left  Judah.  It  appears  that  they  have  never 
received  as  canonical  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  except  the 
five  books  of  Moses,  which  at  present  they  hold  as  alone  of  divine 
authority.  Hippolytus  remarks  of  the  Samaritans  :  "  They  pay  no 
attention  to  the  prophets,  but  only  to  the  law  given  by  Moses."5 
Origen  observes,  that  they  receive  nothing  more  than  the  Pentateuch 
of  Moses.4  Jerome  had  a  copy  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  his 
own  hands,  for  he  has  given  us  a  reading  which  he  found  in  it.6 

Now  the  question  arises.  From  what  source  did  the  Samaritans  de- 
origin  of  the  r*ve  tne^r  Pentateuch  ?  Did  the  priest  appointed  by  the 
Samaritan  Assyrian  king  to  instruct  the  new  colonies  in  Samaria  in 
Pentateuch.  ^  knowledge  of  the  God  of  Israd  (2  Kings  xvii^  2?) 

make  use  of  a  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  which  had  been  in  use  among 
the  ten  tribes  before  they  were  carried  away  captive  by  Shalma- 
neser?  There  is  proof  from  the  prophets  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
known  among  the  ten  tribes,  and  the  most  natural  supposition  is, 
that  it  was  received  from  them  by  the  Samaritans.  The  priest  must 
have  had  a  book  of  the  law  out  of  which  to  instruct  the  colonists, 

ljosephus,  Antiq.,  xii,  5,  5. 

*  See  the  author's  Journey  to  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land,  pp.  183-186. 

*  Contra  Hsereses,  liber  ix,  30.  4  Com.  on  Joan,  torn,  xiii,  26. 

6  Samaritanorum  Hebraea  volumina  relegens  invcni  Choi.  Com.  on  Galatians, 
liber  ii,  cap.  iii. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  177 

ind  the  language  of  2  Kings  xvii  evidently  presupposes  written 
laws  and  statutes  among  them  (ver.  34).  Also  in  Ezra,  chap,  iv,  2, 
the  Samaritans  assert  that  they  have  been  sacrificing  to  the  God 
of  Israel  since  the  days  of  Esar-haddon,  king  of  Assur  (about 
l>.  C.  700).  They  must  have  had  a  Pentateuch  by  which  to  make 
this  sacrifice.  There  is,  accordingly,  probability  that  their  Penta 
teuch  is  considerably  older  than  the  date  of  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
The  irregular  characters  in  which  the  Samaritans  write  their  Penta 
teuch  is  a  proof  of  its  antiquity,  as  the  square  Hebrew  characters 
were  introduced  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Baby-  , 

J  J       Antiquity     of 

Ion,  though  it  appears  that  the  irregular  characters  in  the  Samaritan 
use  previously  to  that  event  were  continued  to  some 
extent  down  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  But  the  Samaritan 
characters  differ  much  from  those  old  Hebrew  characters  on  the 
coins  of  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  and  from  those  of  the  Phoeni 
cians.  It  is  probable  that  the  Samaritan  characters  are  older  than 
any  Semitic  characters  found  on  monuments.  The  changes  in  the 
Semitic  alphabet  going  on  in  all  directions  made  no  change  in  the 
Samaritan.  We  may  conclude  that  the  ancient  Pentateuch,  their 
oldest  literature,  fixed  their  alphabetical  forms. 

We  cannot,  however,  assert  that  the  Samaritans,  if  they  had  not 
already  possessed  a  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  upon  the  return  of  the 
Jews  from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  would  have  failed  to  obtain  it 
from  them. 

Bleek  admits  that  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  established  among  the 
Samaritans  by  the  priest  sent  back  by  the  king  of  As-  Admission  of 
syria  (2  Kings  xvii,  27),  was,  without  doubt,  based  upon  Bleek- 
the  Mosaic  law,  though  not  upon  the  Pentateuch  as  we  now  have  it; 
and  that,  without  doubt,  the  Samaritans,  among  whom  the  reforma 
tion  of  worship  by  Josiah  extended,  had  heard  of  the  discovery  in 
the  temple  of  an  authentic  copy  of  the  law,  and  that  it  is  possible 
that  single  chapters  of  it  reached  them.  He  thinks,  however,  it 
more  probable  that  the  formal  reception  of  the  Pentateuch  among 
them  in  its  present  form,  as  an  authentic  codex  of  the  divine  law, 
did  not  take  place  until  after  the  Babylonian  exile.1  De  Wette  is  of 
opinion  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  obtained  from  the  Jews 
when  the  Samaritans  built  their  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  in  the 
time  of  Alexander  the  Great  (about  B.  C.  330).' 

The  existence  of  a  written  code  of  the  laws  of  Moses  among  the 
ten  tribes  and  Samaritans  is  fatal  to  the  hypothesis  of   False  nypotne- 
the  late  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  under  Manasseh  or  Jo-    i^n°of  Deuter- 
siah.     For  the  priest  from  among  the  ten  tribes  must    onomy. 
1  Pp.  337,  338.  8  Einleitung,  p.  204. 

VOL.  L— 12 


178  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

have  instructed  the  new  colonists  out  of  the  Mosaic  code,  as  it  ex 
isted  among  his  people,  and  the  Samaritans  could  not  have  had 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy  unless  it  had  been  already  acknowledged 
by  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel;  for  if  the  Jews  had  added  this  book  to 
the  Mosaic  code  afterward,  it  would  have  been  rejected  by  the  Sa 
maritans  as  a  forgery. 

The  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  code  among  the  ten  tribes, 
in  connexion  with  the  fact  that  one  of  the  priests  of  those  tribes 
taught  the  new  colonists  the  knowledge  of  the  God  of  Israel,  fur 
nishes  a  strong  proof  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  come  down 
from  the  ten  tribes,  and  that  in  this  form  it  existed  in  the  time  of 
Solomon.  This  is,  therefore,  a  valuable  testimony  to  the  existence 
of  the  whole  Pentateuch  as  early  as  the  time  of  that  monarch.  The 
hatred  of  the  Jews  by  the  Samaritans  led  the  latter  to  reject  every 
thing  that  pertained  to  Judah  alone. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  of  equal 
Advanta  e  of  autnority  with  the  Jewish.  It  was  not  to  be  expected 
the  Jewish  that  it  would  be  preserved  with  all  the  care  and  accu- 
ich'  racy  with  which  that  of  the  Jews  has  been  preserved. 
Preserved  among  a  people  of  purer  faith,  of  wider  culture,  and  of 
large  numbers,  the  Jewish  Pentateuch  has  had  every  thing  in  its 
favour. 

The  agreement  between  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  that  of  the 
Septuagint,  it  seems  to  us,  has  been  frequently  overstated  by  schol 
ars.  It  is  true  that  there  are  many  passages  in  which  the  two  agree 
together,  and  differ  from  the  Jewish  Pentateuch ;  but  in  a  far  greater 
Disagreement  number  of  instances  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  that 
between  the  of  the  Septuagint  differ  from  each  other.  Let  us  take, 

SamaritanPen- 

tateucnandthe  for  example,  the  ten  commandments.  Where  the  Jewish 
Septuagint,  Pentateuch  and  the  Septuagint  have,  "remember  the 
sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy,"  the  Samaritan  has, "  keep  the  sabbath 
day,"  etc.  The  command  to  honour  father  and  mother  is  stated  in 
the  same  way  in  both  the  Jewish  Pentateuch  and  the  Samaritan ; 
but  the  Septuagint  has,  "  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee  .  .  .  upon  the 
good  land,"  etc.  The  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  commandments 
stand  in  the  same  order  in  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan  texts,  but  are 
differently  arranged  in  the  Septuagint.  In  the  command  not  to 
covet,  both  the  Samaritan  and  the  Septuagint  have,  in  addition  to 
the  things  prohibited  in  the  Jewish  text,  "  his  field ;  "  but  the  order  of 
the  words  is  not  the  same.  The  Septuagint  has,  in  addition  to  both 
the  Jewish  and  Samaritan  texts,  a  nor  any  of  his  cattle."  Also  in  the 
fourth  commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,"  the  Samar 
itan  and  Septuagint  supply  the  words  "  in  it  "  to  complete  the  sense. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  179 

In  chronology  the  Jewish  Pentateuch  differs  widely  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  but  less  from  the  Samaritan.  Nor  have  we  any  proof  that 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  been  interpolated  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  or  that  the  latter  has  been  interpolated  from  the  former. 
Not  only  the  difference  between  them,  but  the  history  of  the  text  of 
each  of  these  copies,  is  inconsistent  with  such  hypotheses. 

In  various  places  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  we  find  explana 
tory  remarks,  taken  from  some  other  part  of  the  book,    Explanations 
added.    In  the  account  of  God's  meeting  Balaam  (Num.    in  the  samari- 
xxii,  xxiii),  in  several  instances  the  angel  of  God  is  sub 
stituted  for  God  himself.     But  what  is  most  remarkable,  the  archa 
isms  are  almost  invariably  exchanged  for  later  words.     Matres  lec- 
tionis,  especially  1  and  ',  with  shurek  and  tsere  and  chirek,  are  used 
oftener  than  in  the  Jewish  Pentateuch,  for  the  full  method  of  writ 
ing  generally  characterizes  a  later  period  of  the  Hebrew  language, 
to  which  the  Samaritans  laboured  to  conform  theirs. 

But,  upon  the  whole,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  agrees  well  with 
the  Jewish,  and  is  an  independent  witness  to  its  integrity. 

Hengstenberg  attaches  but  little  value  to  the  Samaritan  Penta 
teuch  as  an  auxiliary  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Jew-  Hengsten- 
ish,  since  he  thinks  it  might  have  been  obtained  from  the  ^rg's  opinion. 
Jews  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  though  he  admits  that  the  fact 
of  the  reception  of  the  Pentateuch  among  the  ten  tribes  furnishes  a 
very  probable  proof  that  the  Samaritan  copy  came  down  from  them. 
Nor  do  we  see  that  Havernick  makes  any  use  of  it  in  views  of  nav- 
defence  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  That  ernick  and 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  come  down  from  the  ten 
tribes  of  Israel  has  been  held  by  Morin,  Houbigant,  Capellus,  Ken- 
nicott,  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Stuart,  and  others.  There 
are  a  few  readings  in  it  that  seem  preferable  to  those  of  the  Jew 
ish,  but,  taken  as  whole,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  decidedly 
inferior. 


180  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  ANTIQUITY,  AUTHORITY,  AND 
INTEGRITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


of  the  most  convincing  methods  of  establishing  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch  is  to  show  that  it  has  existed  ever 
since  the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  it  has  always  borne  his  name.  We 
know  that  at  the  time  of  Christ  all  parties  of  the  Jews  —  in  Palestine, 
in  Egypt,  and  in  whatever  parts  of  the  world  they  were  found  —  re 
ceived  the  Pentateuch  as  the  work  of  Moses.  From  this  period  we 
shall  trace  back  the  Pentateuch  to  the  age  of  Moses. 

The  first  book  of  Maccabees,  written  about  B.  C.  100,  states  that 
The  books  of  in  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
Maccabees.  (about  B.  C.  170),  if  the  book  of  the  covenant  was  found 
with  any  one  he  was  put  to  death  (i  Mace,  i,  57).  Here  the  whole 
Pentateuch  is  called  the  book  of  the  covenant.  Jesus  the  son  of 
Sirach  (about  B.  C.  180  or  earlier)  speaks  of  the  book  of  the  cove 
nant  of  the  most  high  God,  the  law  which  Moses  commanded 
(chap,  xxiv,  23).  Here,  too,  the  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  is 
obvious. 

The  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  translated  into 
Greek  about  B.  C.  280.  This  translation,  forming  a  part  of  the 
LXX.  agrees  remarkably  with  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch,  and  is  the 
most  accurate  part  of  the  Greek  version.  The  translators,  because 
of  their  reverence  for  the  work  of  Moses,  took  no  liberty  with  the 
text. 

The  Pentateuch  of  the  Samaritans  agrees  closely  with  the  Jew- 
Agreement  of  ish,  and  shows  that  no  changes  have  been  made  in  the 
and  to™ewfeh  latter  since  tne  Samaritan  was  taken  from  it.  But  the 
pentateucns.  Samaritan  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  derived 
from  the  Jewish  later  than  B.  C.  330,  when  Sanballat,  with  the  per 
mission  of  Alexander  the  Great,  built  the  Samaritan  temple  on 
Mount  Gerizim.  For  the  Samaritans  must  have  obtained  it  then, 
even  if  they  did  not  already  possess  it. 

Since  the  school  of  Ezra  made  no  changes  in  the  Pentateuch 
after  B.  C.  330,  why  should  they  have  made  any  in  it  before?  Its 
use  for  centuries,  and  its  reputation  as  the  work  of  Moses,  rendered 
it  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  the  priests  and  scribes,  and  would  naturally 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  181 

prevent  it  from  being  altered  or  enlarged.  Even  if  any  priest  or 
scribe  had  attempted  such  a  thing,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
mass  of  the  priests  and  scribes  would  have  consented  to  it. 

Malachi,  about  B.  C.  440,  seventeen  years  after  Ezra  returned 
from  Babylon,  exhorts  the  people:  "Remember  ye  the  MaiacWs rec- 
law  of  Moses  my  servant,  which  I  commanded  unto  him  ^riy  origin  of 
in  Horeb  for  all  Israel,  with  the  statutes  and  judgments  "  Pentateuch, 
(iv,  4).  Here  the  prophet  recognizes  the  Pentateuch  of  that  day  as 
having  been  delivered  in  Horeb  for  all  Israel,  and  not  as  something 
recently  contrived  for  the  Jews  only.  In  Malachi  i,  7,  12-14,  i*1 
the  offering  of  polluted  sacrifices  and  blind  and  maimed  animals, 
there  is  a  reference  to  Lev.  xxii,  22,  and  Deut.  xv,  21.  In  the  with 
holding  of  the  tithes  (iii,  8)  we  have  a  reference  to  Lev.  xxvii,  30; 
Num.  xviii,  21;  Deut.  xxvi,  12.  In  the  Book  of  Nehemiah,  B.  C. 
440,  we  find  clear  references  to  the  Pentateuch:  "And  they  spake 
unto  Ezra  the  scribe  to  bring  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  which 
the  LORD  had  commanded  to  Israel  "  (viii,  i).  Further,  in  verse  14, 
we  read :  "  And  they  found  written  in  the  law  which  the  LORD  had 
commanded  by  Moses  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  dwell  in 
booths  in  the  feast  of  the  seventh  month."  This  has  reference  to 
Lev.  xxiii,  34, 42.  Nehemiah  does  not  seem  to  have  had  the  least  sus 
picion  that  this  command,  as  well  as  the  whole  priestly  system  of 
the  Pentateuch,  was  an  interpolation  and  forgery  of  Ezra.  In  the 
prayer  offered  by  the  eight  Levites  there  is  a  recapitu-  Nehemiah  and 
lation  of  the  Israelitish  history  and  legislation  of  Moses  ofTariy'oS 
in  which  there  are  references  to  all  the  five  books  of  the  of  Pentateuch. 
Pentateuch  (ix,  6-35).  Also  in  xiii,  i,  2,  passages  are  given  which 
it  is  said  "  they  read  in  the  book  of  Moses" — the  identical  passages 
of  our  present  Pentateuch. 

In  the  Book  of  Ezra  it  is  stated  that  the  Jews  who  went  up  with 
Zerubbabel  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  (B.  C.  536)  built  an  altar  in 
the  latter  city  "  to  offer  burnt  offerings  thereon,  as  it  is  written  in  the 
law  of  Moses  the  man  of  God.  .  .  .  And  they  offered  burnt  offerings 
thereon  unto  the  LORD,  even  burnt  offerings  morning  and  evening. 
They  kept  also  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  as  it  is  written,  and  offered 
the  daily  burnt  offerings  by  number,  according  to  the  custom,  as  the 
duty  of  every  day  required;  and  afterward  offered  the  continual  burnt 
offering,  both  of  the  new  moons  and  of  all  the  set  feasts  of  the  LORD 
that  were  consecrated,"  etc.  (iii,  2-5).  Here  the  reference  is  to 
Exod.  xxix,  38,  39 ;  Num.  xxviii,  3,  4.  The  last  clause  of  Ezra 
iii,  4,  is  the  exact  language  of  the  last  clause  in  Lev.  xxiii,  37. 
These  sacrifices  were  offered  according  to  the  Mosaic  law  about 
eighty  years  before  Ezra  came  up  to  Jerusalem.  It  is,  therefore, 


182  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

clear  that  he  could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  prescriptions 
of  the  law  concerning  sacrifices. 

Respecting  Ezra  himself,  who  went  up  to  Jerusalem  about 
B.  C.  457,  it  is  said :  "  He  was  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
which  the  LORD  God  of  Israel  had  given  "  (Ezra  vii,  6).  "  Ezra  had 
prepared  his  heart  to  seek  the  law  of  the  LORD,  and  to  do  it,  and 
to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and  judgments."  He  was  a  student  in  the 
Ezraa student  *aw>  not  *ts  autnor»  nor  its  amender,  nor  one  who  had 
not  the  author,  incorporated  traditions  into  it.  The  tradition  of  the 
Jews  knows  nothing  of  Ezra's  having  written  any  part 
of  the  law.  "  His  merit  is  celebrated  in  these  words  :  '  Ezra  would 
have  been  worthy  of  the  law's  being  given  through  him  if  Moses 
had  not  anticipated  him.'  ' 

Haggai.  In  this  prophet,  who  prophesied  about  B.  C.  520,  when 
the  Jews  were  rebuilding  the  temple,  we  find  the  following  refer 
ence  to  the  Mosaic  law :  **  Ask  now  the  priests  concerning  the  law 
\ToraK\)  saying,  If  one  bear  holy  flesh  in  the  skirt  of  his  garment, 
and  with  his  skirt  do  touch  bread,  or  pottage,  or  wine,  or  oil,  or  any 
meat,  shall  it  be  holy  ?  And  the  priest,  answered  and  said,  No. 
Then  said  Haggai,  If  one  that  is  unclean  by  a  dead  body  touch  any 
of  these,  shall  it  be  unclean  ?  And  the  priests  answered  and  said, 
It  shall  be  unclean  "  (ii,  11-13).  In  the  last  verse  the  reference  is 
to  Num.  xix,  11  :  "He  that  toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man 
shall  be  unclean,"  and  to  xix,  22  :  "Whatsoever  the  unclean  person 
toucheth  shall  be  unclean." 

Zechariah.  In  this  prophet,  who  was  contemporary  with  Haggai, 
Minute  pro-  we  find  references  in  xiv,  16,  18,  19,  to  the  feasts  of 
encel°  loathe  tabernacles,  according  to  the  law  in  Lev.  xxiii,  34,  43, 
Mosaic  law.  and  Deut.  xvi,  13;  and  in  iii,  5,  to  the  mitre  upon  the 
head  of  the  high  priest,  according  to  the  arrangement  in  Exod. 
xxxix,  28 ;  Lev.  viii,  9. 

Ezekiel.  This  prophet,  who  lived  in  Chaldea  during  the  first  part 
of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  makes  frequent  references  to  the  Mo 
saic  laws,  and  even  to  some  of  those  very  laws  which  the  new 
school  of  critics  would  have  us  believe  Ezra,  or  the  prophet  himself, 
wrote.  In  iv,  14,  Ezekiel  declares  :  "  My  soul  hath  not  been  pol 
luted  :  for  from  my  youth  up  even  till  now  have  I  not  eaten 
of  that  which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is  torn  in  pieces;  neither  came 
there  abominable  flesh  into  my  mouth."  The  "  torn "  refers  to 
Exod.  xxii,  31;  "that  which  dieth  of  itself"  to  Lev.  xvii,  15; 
and  the  "  abominable  thing  "  to  Deut.  xiv,  3  :  in  which  passages, 

1  In  Sanhedrim  2ibandYer.  Megilla  i,  9  in  Weber,  System  der  Alt.  Syn.  Palaest 
Theologie,  p.  2,  Leipzig,  1880. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  183 

it  is  forbidden  to  eat  these  things.  In  describing  the  right 
eous  man,  the  prophet  asserts  that  "  he  hath  not  come  near  to  a 
menstruous  woman"  (xviii,  6),  in  reference  to  Lev.  xviii,  19,  and 
xx,  1 8  :  "And  hath  not  oppressed  any,  but  hath  restored  to  the 
debtor  his  pledge,  hath  spoiled  none  by  violence,  hath  given  his 
bread  to  the  hungry,  and  hath  covered  the  naked  with  a  garment ; 
he  that  hath  not  given  forth  upon  usury,  neither  hath  taken  any 
increase,  .  .  .  hath  executed  true  judgment  between  man  and  man, 
hath  walked  in  my  statutes,  and  hath  kept  my  judgments,  to  do 
truly  ;  he  is  just,"  etc.  (xviii,  7-9).  Some  of  the  foregoing  prohibi 
tions  and  injunctions  refer  to  Exod.  xxii,  21,  22,  25,  26;  Lev. 
xix,  15;  xxv,  14;  Deut.  xv,  7,  8;  xxiv,  12,  13.  In  chap,  xx  we 
have  a  reference  to  God's  revelation  of  himself  to  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt :  "  I  gave  them  my  statutes,  and  showed  them  my  judgments, 
which  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  even  live  in  them.  Moreover  also  I 
gave  them  my  sabbaths.  .  .  .  But  the  house  of  Israel  rebelled 
against  me  in  the  wilderness  :  they  walked  not  in  my  statutes,  and 
they  despised  my  judgments :  .  .  .  then  I  said,  I  would  pour  out 
my  fury  upon  them  in  the  wilderness,  to  consume  them.  .  .  .  Yet 
also  I  lifted  up  my  hand  unto  them  in  the  wilderness,  that  I  would 
not  bring  them  into  the  land  which  I  had  given  them  "  (11-15),  m 
refence  to  Num.  xiv,  28,  29.  In  the  phrase,  "Which,  if  a  man  do, 
he  shall  even  live  in  them,"  there  is  the  language  of  Lev.  xviii,  5. 
The  oath  that  the  Israelites  should  be  scattered  among  the 
heathen,  and  dispersed  through  the  countries,  refers  to  Lev.  xxvi,  33, 
and  to  Deut.  xxviii,  64 ;  for  in  the  former  passage  mi,  to  scatter,  is 
used,  and  in  the  latter  f  2n,  to  disperse,  both  verbs  being  combined. 
In  xxii,  26,  it  is  declared :  "  Her  priests  have  violated  my  law 
[ToraAi],  and  have  profaned  mine  holy  things:  they  have  put  no 
difference  between  the  holy  and  profane,  neither  have  they  showed 
difference  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean,  and  have  hid  their 
eyes  from  my  sabbaths,  and  I  am  profaned  among  them."  Here 
the  prophet  refers  to  the  Torah  (law),  and  to  the  ordinances 
respecting  things  clean  and  unclean,  as  we  find  them  in  Lev.  xxii. 
In  xxiv,  7,  we  observe  a  reference  to  the  precept  in  Lev.  xvii,  13, 
where  it  is  enjoined  to  pour  out  the  blood,  and  to  cover  it  with 
dust.  In  the  command  not  to  exhibit  signs  of  grief  Ezekiei'srefer- 
(Ezek.  xxiv,  18-23),  tne  head  is  not  to  be  uncovered,  encestoLeviti- 
,  ,  . ,  .  ,/•,.•  \  '  cus  and  other 

and    the    lip    is   not    to  be  covered  (with    hair),  with   parts    of   the 

reference  to  Lev.  x,  6,  and  xiii,  45.  Pentateuch. 

In  xxxvi,  27,  it  is  said  :  "  I  will  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes, 
and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and  do  them ;  "  and  in  verse  38 


184  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

"  the  solemn  feasts  "  are  named.  In  xvi,  38-40,  we  find  the  follow 
ing  :  **  I  will  judge  thee  as  women  that  break  wedlock  and  shed 
blood  are  judged;  .  .  .  they  shall  stone  thee  with  stones."  In  Lev. 
xx,  10,  and  Deut.  xxii,  22,  nothing  is  said  about  the  kind  of  death 
the  adulteress  shall  die.  If,  therefore,  the  precept  in  Leviticus  is 
later  than  the  passage  in  Ezekiel,  it  is  strange  that  the  manner  of 
the  death  of  the  adulteress  is  left  undetermined. 

In  chap,  xliv,  6-8,  in  the  prophet's  vision  of  the  house  of  the  LORD 
(B.  C.  574),  God  directs  him  to  say  unto  the  house  of  Israel :  "  Let  it 
suffice  you  of  all  your  abominations,  in  that  you  have  brought  into 
my  sanctuary  strangers,  uncircumcised  in  heart,  and  uncircumcised 
in  flesh,  to  be  in  my  sanctuary,  to  pollute  it,  even  my  house, 
when  ye  offer  my  bread  [the  name  for  sacrifice  in  Leviticus],  the 
fat  and  the  blood,  and  they  have  broken  my  covenant  because  of 
all  your  abominations.  And  ye  have  not  kept  the  charge  of  mine 
holy  things."  In  these  passages  the  reference  is  to  Lev.  xxi,  6-8 ; 
iii,  16;  xvii,  n,  where  the  bread  of  God  and  the  fat  and  blood  of 
sacrifice  are  mentioned.  These  sacrifices  are  declared  to  be  of 
divine  appointment. 

In  Ezekiel's  description  of  the  qualifications  and  duties  of  the 
future  priests  (xliv,  15-31),  we  find  a  repetition  of  the  regulations 
for  the  most  part  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  proves  his  acquaintance 
with  those  books.  In  some  matters,  however,  Ezekiel  departs  from 
the  Pentateuchal  regulations.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  in  an 
ideal  state  of  the  future,  in  which  the  Levites  have  a  tract  of  land 
nearly  fifty  miles  by  twenty  (xlviii,  13) :  Issachar  bordering  on 
Simeon  (verse  25),  and  Gad  on  Zebulun  (verse  27).  The  city  has 
twelve  gates.  All  these  descriptions  are  contrary  to  the  geograph 
ical  location  of  the  tribes,  and  in  contradiction  with  the  number  of 
gates  which  Jerusalem  had.  There  are  other  descriptions  of  a  simi 
lar  unreal  character.  Was  Ezekiel  ignorant  of  the  geography  and 
topography  of  Palestine?  Hardly.  If,  then,  some  of  his  regu 
lations  are  different  from  those  of  the  Pentateuch,  does  that  prove 
his  ignorance  of  it  ?  Certainly  the  returning  exiles  never  dreamed 
of  fashioning  their  commonwealth  after  the  ideal  style  of  Ezekiel. 

The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah.  This  book,  written  shortly  after 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  contains  several  ref 
erences  to  the  institutions  of  the  Jews  which  are  found  in  our  Pen 
tateuch.  "  The  ways  of  Zion  do  mourn,  because  none  come  to  the 
solemn  feasts  "  (i,  4).  Here  the  reference  is  to  the  appointed  feasts 
of  the  Pentateuch.  "  The  heathen  entered  into  her  sanctuary  whom 
thou  didst  command  that  they  should  not  enter  into  thy  congrega 
tion  "  (i,  10).  Here  the  reference  is  to  Deut.  xxiii,  3,  where  it  is 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  185 

enjoined  that  "  an  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter  into  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord/'  etc.  "  The  Lord  hath  caused  the 
solemn  feasts  and  the  sabbaths  to  be  forgotten  in  Zion  "  (ii,  6). 
"  The  law  [Torah\  is  no  more  "  (ii,  9).  "  Her  Nazarites  were  purer 
than  snow"  (iv,  7).  The  institution  of  the  Nazarites  is  found  in 
Num.  vi,  1-8. 

The  prophet  Jeremiah.  In  this  prophet,  whose  ministry  extended 
from  B.  C.  629  to  589,  we  find  many  references  to  a  code  of  laws 
corresponding  to  our  Pentateuch,  which  were  manifestly  written. 
"  The  priests  said  not,  Where  is  the  LORD  ?  and  they  that  handle  the 
law  [ToraX\  knew  me  not"  (ii,  8).  "I  had  put  her  [adulterous 
Israel]  away,  and  given  her  a  bill  of  divorce  "  (iii,  8).  This  is 
based  on  Deut.  xxiv,  3,  where  a  man  may,  under  given  Jeremlah'sref 
circumstances,  give  his  wife  a  "  bill  of  divorce  '*  and  erences  to  the 
dismiss  her.  "  I  beheld  the  earth,  and,  lo,  it  was  without  Pentateuch- 
form,  and  void  "  ('nil  *nn)  (iv,  23).  This  is  the  exact  language  of 
Gen.  i,  2,  and  shows  that  Jeremiah  had  before  him  what  is  called 
the  Elohistic  account  of  creation,  and  proves  the  falsity  of  the  theory 
that  this  part  of  Genesis  was  written  after  the  captivity.1  "Behold, 
I  will  bring  evil  upon  this  people,  .  .  .  because  they  have  not 
hearkened  unto  my  words,  nor  to  my  law,  but  rejected  it  "  (vi,  19). 
"  How  do  ye  say,  We  are  wise,  and  the  law  \^Torah\  of  the  LORD  is 
with  us?  Lo,  certainly  in  vain  made  he  it;  the/^  of  the  scribes  is 
in  vain  "  (viii,  8).  Here  it  is  evident  that  the  reference  is  to  the 
written  Torah  (law).  "  Because  they  have  forsaken  my  law  \Torati\ 
which  I  set  before  them"  (ix,  13).  "Cursed  be  the  man  that 
obeyeth  not  the  words  of  this  covenant,  which  I  commanded  your 
fathers  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  from  the  iron  furnace,  saying,  Obey  my  voice,  and  do  them, 
according  to  all  which  I  command  you :  so  shall  ye  be  my  people, 
and  I  will  be  your  God :  that  I  may  perform  the  oath  which  I  have 
sworn  unto  your  fathers,  to  give  them  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey"  (xi,  3-5). 

In  this  section  we  have  a  reference  to  the  curse  pronounced  upon 
those  who  do  not  obey  the  law,  based  on  Deut.  xxvii,  26.  "  The 
iron  furnace  "  is  the  exact  language  of  Deut.  iv,  20.  "  A  land  flow 
ing  with  milk  and  honey "  is  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch. 
"Your  fathers  have  not  kept  my  law  [Torah]"  (xvi,  n);  "The 
law  shall  not  perish  from  the  priest"  (xviii,  18);  "To  walk  in  my 
law  which  I  have  set  before  you  "  (xxvi,  4)  :  the  combination  of 

1  It  is  very  probable  that  the  phrase  "When  ye  be  multiplied  and  increased" 
(Jer.  iii,  16)  re'fers  to  Gen.  i,  28 :  "Be  fruitful  and  multiply,"  and  to  Gen.  viii,  17, 
both  Elohistic  passages. 


186  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

these  three  passages  shows  that  "  the  law  "  (Torah)  is  the  law  of 
God  in  the  hands  of  the  priests,  and  that  it  is  no  new  thing.  "  The 
planters  shall  plant  vineyards  and  profane  "  them  (xxxi,  5) :  here 
we  have  a  reference  to  Lev.  xix,  23,  where  it  is  enjoined  that  when 
the  Israelites  plant  any  kind  of  fruit  trees,  they  shall  not  eat  any  of 
the  fruit  for  three  years.  Henc.e,  "  to  profane  a  vineyard  "  is  to  eat 
of  its  fruit.  In  xxxi,  31-33,  God  declares  that  he  will  make  a  new 
covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  different  from  the  one  he  made 
with  them  when  he  brought  them  out  of  Egypt.  He  further  says 
that  he  will  write  this  new  covenant  upon  their  hearts,  which  shows 
that  the  first  covenant  was  written  upon  something  else. 

In  xxxii,  8,  Hanameel.  the  son  of  Jeremiah's  uncle,  addresses  the 
prophet,  respecting  a  field  in  Anathoth :  "  The  right  of  inheritance 
is  thine  and  the  redemption  is  thine;  buy  it  for  thyself."  This 
passage  refers  to  Lev.  xxv,  25,  in  which  it  is  stated  :  "  If  thy  brother 
be  waxen  poor,  and  hath  sold  away  a  part  of  his  possession,  and  if 
any  of  his  kin  come  to  redeem  it,  then  shall  he  redeem  that  which 
his  brother  sold."  In  xxxiv,  13,  14,  the  prophet  speaks  of  the  cov 
enant  God  made  with  the  Israelites  when  he  brought  them  out  of 
Egvpt,  in  which  a  Hebrew  slave  is  to  be  set  free  after  six  years' 
servitude.  This  law  is  found  in  Exod.  xxi,  2,  and  Deut.  xv,  12. 
"  Neither  have  they  feared,  nor  walked  in  my  law,  nor  in  my  stat 
utes,  that  I  set  before  you  and  before  your  fathers  "  (xliv,  10).  "  Nor 
walked  in  his  law,  nor  in  his  statutes,  nor  in  his  testimonies " 
(verso  23).  "A  fire  and  a  flame  .  .  .  shall  devour  the  corner  of 
Moab,  and  the  corner  of  the  head  of  the  tumultuous  ones " 
(xlviii,  45).  Gesenius1  rightly  regards  this  passage  as  an  imitation 
of  Num.  xx:v,  17:  "A  scepter  shall  rise  out  of  Israel  and  shall 
smite  the  corners  of  Moab." 

The  prophet  Isaiah.  In  the  first  chapter  of  this  prophet,  who 
flourished  B.  C.  758-705,  we  find  named,  "sacrifices,"  "burnt  offer- 
Isaiah's  clear  ^n§s'"  "incense,"  "new  moons,"  "sabbaths,"  "  assern- 
references  to  blies,"  "  feasts,"  etc.,  as  Jewish  observances,  doubtless 

thePentateuch.    ,,  .  . 

the  same  as  we  have  in  our  Pentateuch.        They  have 

cast  away  the  law  [Torah]  of  the  LORD  of  hosts  "  (v,  24).  "  Bind 
up  the  testimony,  seal  the  law  [Torah]  among  my  disciples" 
(viii,  1 6).  In  these  passages  there  is  doubtless  a  reference  to  the 
Pentateuch.  In  xxiii,  18,  we  have  "  splendid  garments  ;"  that  is,  as 
Gesenius3  explains  it,  "The  splendor  of  the  sacerdotal  vestments 
handed  down  from  antiquity."  In  xxiv,  5,  we  have  the  following: 
u  They  have  transgressed  the  laws,  broken  the  everlasting  covenant." 

1  Heb.  Lex.,  fi$,  and  Com.  Samart.  Pent.         3  See  his  Heb.  Lex.,  sub 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  187 

"  In  that  day  shall  the  deaf  hear  the  words  of  the  book  "  (xxix,  18) ; 
that  is,  as  Gesenius  understands  it,  "  the  book  of  the  law."  *  We  also 
read :  "  Children  that  will  not  hear  the  law  of  Jehovah  "  (xxx,  9) ; 
"  seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the  LORD  and  read  "  (xxxiv,  16).  The 
reference  here  seems  to  be  to  the  fact  that  Isaiah's  prophecies  form 
a  part  of  a  collection  of  sacred  writings.  "  Thus  saith  the  LORD, 
Where  is  the  bill  of  your  mother's  divorcement  whom  I  have  put 
away"  (1,  i)  ?  Here  the  reference  is  to  Deut.  xxiv,  i,  where  the 
law  permits  the  husband  to  dismiss  his  wife  with  a  bill  of  divorce. 
Both  in  Deuteronomy  and  Isaiah  the  same  phrase,  nimj)  "i2D,  is  used, 
the  latter  being  written  defectively  without  the  1  in  Deuteronomy, 
as  might  be  expected  from  its  being  the  earlier  writing,  nbar,  to  dis 
miss,  is  used  in  both  passages. 

Nahum.  In  this  prophet,  who  flourished  about  B.C.  630,  we 
find  the  following:  "O  Judah,  keep  thy  solemn  feasts,  perform  thy 
vows"  (i,  15).  This  language  implies  the  divine  institution  of  the 
Jewish  feasts,  and  refers  to  the  regulations  of  the  Pentateuch  re 
specting  vows. 

Habakkuk.  In  this  prophet  (B.  C.  625)  there  is  a  reference  to 
the  Pentateuch  in  the  following  words:  "The  law  [Torah]  is 
torpid  "  (i,  4). 

Zephaniah.  This  prophet  (B.  C.  625)  refers  as  follows  to  the  law  : 
"  Her  [Jerusalem's]  priests  have  polluted  the  sanctuary,  they  have 
done  violence  to  the  law  [Torah]  "  (iii,  4). 

Joel.  This  prophet,  who  flourished  about  B.  C.  880,  makes  sev 
eral  references  to  the  institutions  of  the  Pentateuch.  "The  meat 
offering  and  the  drink  offering  is  cut  off  from  the  hbuse  of  the  LORD; 
the  priests,  the  LORD'S  ministers,  mourn  "  (i,  9).  "  Sanctify  a  fast, 
call  a  solemn  assembly :  gather  the  elders  and  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land  into  the  house  of  the  LORD  your  God,  and  cry  unto  the 
LORD"  (verse  14).  Again:  "Blow  the  trumpet  in  Zion,  sanctify  a 
fast,  call  a  solemn  assembly,  gather  the  people,  sanctify  the  congre 
gation,  ...  let  the  priests,  the  ministers  of  the  LORD,  weep  between 
the  porch  and  the  altar,  and  let  them  say,  Spare  thy  people,  O  Lord  " 
(ii,  15-17).  It  is  clear  that  Joel  recognizes  the  divine  authority  of 
the  priests,  and  certainly  approves  of  their  services.  "  The  meat 
offering"  (nmp),  and  "the  drink  offering"  Olp}),  are  the  words  of 
the  Pentateuch.  In  Num.  x,  2,  3,  it  is  enjoined  that  "the  calling 
of  the  assembly"  shall  be  made  by  blowing  trumpets. 

Micah.  This  prophet,  who  began  to  prophesy  about  B.  C.  750, 
makes  several  references  to  the  Pentateuch.  In  chap,  v,  6, 

1  Heb.  Lex.,  sub  15D- 


188  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Assyria  is  coupled  with  the  land  of  Nimrod  in  reference  to  Gen.  x, 
Micah's  aiiu-  8~*  2 »  anc^  *n  v*'  4»  Miriam  is  named  along  with  Moses  and 
sions  to  the  Aaron.  The  following  passage  is  evidently  taken  from 
Numbers:  "O  my  people,  remember  now  what  Balak 
king  of  Moab  consulted,  and  what  Balaam  the  son  of  Beor  answered 
him  from  Shittim  unto  Gilgal  "  (chap,  vi,  5).  The  passage,  "He 
hath  showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good  ;  and  what  doth  the  Lord 
require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  with  thy  God  "  '(chap,  vi,  8),  seems  to  be  based  upon  the 
following  in  Deut.  x,  12  :  "  And  now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy 
God  require  of  thee,  but  to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  all 
his  ways,  and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul." 

The  Prophet  Amos,  who  flourished  about  B.  C.  800,  shows  in  va 
rious  passages  his  acquaintance  with  the  Pentateuch.  In  chap,  i,  nf 
References  of  tnere  *s  a  Probat>le  reference  to  Gen.  xxvii,  41 :  "  Be- 
Amos  to  the  cause  he  [Edom]  did  pursue  his  brother  with  the  sword, 
'euch*  and  did  cast  off  all  pity,  and  his  anger  did  tear  per 
petually,  and  he  kept  his  wrath  for  ever."  Allusion  is  also  made  to 
the  forty  years*  wandering  through  the  wilderness  (chap,  ii,  10). 
There  is  a  clear  reference  in  chap,  ii,  n,  12,  to  the  law  in  Num 
bers  vi,  2-21 :  "And  I  raised  up  of  your  sons  for  prophets,  and  of 
your  young  men  for  Nazarites.  .  .  .  But  ye  gave  the  Nazarites  wine 
to  drink."  It  was  one  of  the  requirements  of  the  Nazarite  that  he 
should  drink  no  wine.  "  They  have  despised  the  law  of  the  LORD, 
and  have  not  kept  his  commandments  "  (ii,  4). 

"  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  "  (Amos 
iii,  2)  refers  to  Exodus  xix,  5,  and  Deut.  vii,  6.  In  "Bring  youi 
sacrifices  every  morning,  and  your  tithes  after  three  years  "  (chap, 
iv,  4),  we  have  a  clear  reference  to  Deut.  xiv,  28  :  "  At  the  end  of 
three  years  thou  shalt  bring  forth  all  the  tithe  of  thine  increase  the 
same  year,  and  shalt  lay  it  up  within  thy  gates."  In  Amos  we  have 
D'D'  nvhvfa,  at  the  end  of  three  days,  literally.  But  Gesenius  gives 
several  examples  of  the  use  of  D'D',  days  for  years,  and  translates  the 
passage  :  "  After  the  end  of  three  years"  or,  better,  every  three  days — • 
in  bitter  irony.  In  either  case  the  reference  would  be  to  the  law  re 
quiring  the  bringing  of  tithes  at  the  end  of  three  years  found  only  in 
Deut.  xiv,  28.  "  I  have  smitten  you  with  blasting  and  mildew  " 
(chap,  iv,  9),  was  a  judgment  threatened  in  Deut.  xxviii,  22.  Corn- 
pare  "  I  have  sent  among  you  the  pestilence  after  the  manner  of 
Egypt"  (chap,  iv,  10),  with  Deut.  xxviii,  60:  "Moreover,  he  will 
bring  upon  thee  all  the  diseases  of  Egypt."  In  chap,  v,  22,  "Though 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  189 

ye  offer  me  burnt  offerings  and  your  meatofferings,  I  will  not  accept 
them  ;  neither  will  I  regard  the  peace  offerings  of  your  fat  beasts," 
we  have  named  various  sacrifices  enjoined  in  the  Pentateuch.  In 
addition  to  these  sacrifices  we  have  in  chap,  iv,  5  :  "  Offer  a  sacrifice 
of  thanksgiving  with  leaven,"  in  allusion  to  Lev.  vii,  13.  In  chap, 
iv,  4,  the  command  is  given  to  bring  the  sacrifice  every  morning, 
thus  referring  to  Num.  xxviii,  3,  4.  In  ii,  7,  "  To  profane  my  holy 
name,"  we  have  a  reference  to  Lev.  xx,  3.  In  chap,  viii,  5,  the 
new  moon  and  the  sabbath  are  mentioned  as  Israelitish  institutions. 
We  have  in  chap,  v,  25,  26,  a  reference  to  the  idolatry  of  the  Isra 
elites  in  the  desert :  "  Ye  have  offered  unto  me  sacrifices  and  offer 
ings  in  the  wilderness  forty  years,  O  house  of  Israel.  And  ye  have 
borne  the  tabernacle  of  your  king,  even  Chiun  your  idol,  the  star  of 
your  god,  which  ye  made  for  yourselves."1  This  language  does 
not  imply  that  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  had  not  a  knowledge  of 
the  true  God,  but  simply  that,  while  making  sacrifices  to  the  true 
God  and  performing  the  external  rites  of  worship,  they  combined 
with  it  the  idolatrous  worship  of  Saturn,1  whose  image  and  taberna 
cle  they  carried  with  them  in  their  wanderings.  The  whole  history  of 
the  Jews  in  the  Pentateuch  shows  their  frequent  lapses  into  idolatry. 

The  knowledge  of  the  Pentateuch  which  Amos  displays  is  re 
markable,  as  he  had  received  no  training  in  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  but  was  simply  "  a  herdman,  and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore 
fruit."  "And  the  Lord  took  me  as  I  followed  the  flock,  and  the 
Lord  said  unto  me,  Go  prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel  "  (chap. 
vii,  14,  15). 

Hosea.  In  this  prophet,  who  began  to  prophesy  about  B.  C.  785, 
we  find  a  considerable  number  of  references  to  the  Pentateuch. 
The  comparison  of  the  children  of  Israel  to  a  woman  who  leaves 
her  husband  and  goes  after  other  men  is  a  favorite  simile  with 
Hosea  to  set  forth  the  apostasy  of  Israel  from  the  true  God 
and  their  devotion  to  idolatrous  worship.  For  example  :  "  The 
land  hath  committed  great  whoredom,  departing  from  the  Lord  " 
(chap,  i,  2);  and  "they  have  gone  a  whoring  from  under  their 
God"  (chap,  iv,  12).  The  simile  is  obviously  based  on  the  lan 
guage  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  Exod.  xxxiv,  15,  it  is  said:  "Lest 
thou  make  a  covenant  with  the  land,  and  they  go  a  whoring  after 
their  gods,  and  do  sacrifice  unto  their  gods."  Again,  in  Dent, 
xxxi,  16  :  "And  this  people  will  rise  up,  and  go  a  whoring  after  the 
gods  of  the  strangers  of  the  land." 

In  the  following  passages  we  have  a  reference  to  the  institutions 
of  the  Pentateuch :  "  I  will  also  cause  all  her  mirth  to  cease,  her 

1  That  Chiun  means  Saturn,  see  the  Hebrew  Lexicons  of  Gesenius  and  Fiirst. 


190  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

feast  days,  her  new  moons,  and  her  sabbaths,  and  all  her  solemn 
feasts  "  (ii,  n);  "And  I  that  am  the  Lord  thy  God  from  the  land 
of  Egypt  will  yet  make  thee  to  dwell  in  tabernacles,  as  in  the  days 
of  the  solemn  feasts  "  (xii,  9).  In  the  latter  passage  the  reference 
is  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  as  enjoined  in  Lev.  xxiii,  42,  43,  in 
which  the  people  are  to  dwell  in  booths — the  only  passage  in  the 
Pentateuch  in  which  the  dwelling  in  booths  or  tabernacles  is  men 
tioned.  This  refutes  the  new  school  of  Graf,  Wellhausen,  and 
others,  who  hold  that  Leviticus  was  not  written  until  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  or  even  later.  "  Their  sacrifices  shall  be  unto  them  as 
the  bread  of  mourners  ;  all  that  eat  thereof  shall  be  polluted  "  (ix,  4). 
In  this  passage  there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxvi,  14. 
In  xi,  8,  Admah  and  Zeboim  are  named  from  Gen.  xiv,  2.  In 
chap,  xii,  3,  4,  we  have  a  clear  reference  to  the  history  in  the  Pen 
tateuch  :  "  He  [Jacob]  took  his  brother  by  the  heel  in  the  womb, 
and  by  his  strength  he  had  power  with  God :  Yea,  he  had  power 
over  the  angel,  and  prevailed  :  he  wept,  and  made  supplication  unto 
him:  he  found  him  in  Beth-el,  and  there  he  spake  with  us."  This 
is  taken  from  Gen.  xxv,  26;  xxxii,  24-30;  xxviii,  11-20.  The 
second  of  these  passages  in  Genesis  is  Elohistic,  the  name  of  Elohim 
(God)  occurring  twice  in  it. 

But  according  to  the  new  critical  school  of  Kayser,  Wellhausen, 
Proof  from  HO-  and  others,  the  Elohistic  portions  of  Genesis  were  written 

latVorigi^of  about  the  time  of  Ezra-  Now'  Hosea's  reference  to  this 
Genesis.  Elohistic  section  is  a  palpable  refutation  of  their  theory. 

In  chap,  xii,  12,  we  have  a  reference  to  Gen.  xxix,  xxx  :  "  And  Jacob 
fled  into  the  country  of  Syria,  and  Israel  served  for  a  wife,  and  for 
a  wife  he  kept  sheep."  In  ix,  TO,  Hosea,  speaking  of  Israel  in  the 
wilderness,  says :  "  But  they  went  to  Baal-peor,  and  separated  them 
selves  unto  that  shame  ;  and  their  abominations  were  according  as 
they  loved."  Here  we  have  a  clear  reference  to  Num.  xxv,  in 
which  there  is  a  description  of  the  conduct  of  Israel,  who  "joined 
himself  unto  Baal-peor,"  and  of  the  calamities  that  overtook  the 
people,  and  of  the  promise  to  Phinehas  of  an  everlasting  priesthood. 
The  school  of  Wellhausen  put  this  chapter  of  Numbers  into  the 
Codex  of  the  Priests,  which,  according  to  their  theory,  was  written 
about  the  time  of  Ezra.  Could  any  refutation  of  this  be  clearer 
than  Hosea's  reference  to  this  very  chapter?  The  Pentateuch  is 
clearly  referred  to  in  the  passage,  u  Thou  hast  forgotten  the  law  * 
[Torah]  of  thy  God  "  (iv,  6).  Schrader  a  acknowledges  that  Hosea 
was  acquainted  with  Genesis. 

*On  Hosea  viii,  12,  see  p.  145. 

9  In  his  edit,  of  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  pp.  316-318. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  191 


CHAPTER  XX. 

ALLUSIONS    TO   THE    PENTATEUCH    IN   THE   BOOKS   OF   PROV 
ERBS   AND    PSALMS. 

HTHE  Book  of  Proverbs.  From  the  character  of  the  Book  of  the 
-*  Proverbs  of  Solomon  we  are  not  to  expect  any  references  to  the 
Mosaic  history,  but  to  the  Mosaic  precepts.  And  such  we  Solomon's  ai- 
actually  find.  Compare,  "  Let  not  mercy  and  truth  for-  JJJSJ  top£! 
sake  thee;  bind  them  about  thy  neck"  (chap,  iii,  3);  and  cepts. 
in  reference  to  moral  precepts  :  "  Bind  them  upon  thy  fingers " 
(chap,  vii,  3),  with  Deut.  vi,  8,  "  Thou  shalt  bind  them  for  a  sign 
upon  thine  hand,  and  they  shall  be  as  frontlets  between  thine  eyes;" 
and  also  with  Deut.  xi,  18,  and  Exod.  xiii,  19,  upon  which  the  pas 
sages  from  Proverbs  are  based.  Compare,  "  My  son,  despise  not 
the  chastening  of  the  Lord,  neither  be  weary  of  his  correction;  for 
whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  correcteth,  even  as  a  father  the  son  in 
whom  he  delighteth  "  (chap,  iii,  n,  12),  with  Deut.  viii,  5,  "Thou 
shalt  also  consider  in  thine  heart,  that,  as  a  man  chasteneth  his  son, 
so  the  Lord  thy  God  chasteneth  thee."  "A  false  balance  is  abomi 
nation  to  the  Lord"  (chap,  xi,  i)  is  obviously  based  on  Deut.  xxv, 
13-16,  "Thou  shalt  not  have  in  thy  bag  divers  weights,  a  great  and 
a  small :  .  .  .  For  all  that  do  such  things  .  .  .  are  an  abomination 
unto  the  Lord  thy  God."  "It  is  not  good  to  accept  the  person  of 
the  wicked,  to  overthrow  the  righteous  in  judgment  "  (chap,  xviii,  5) 
is  said,  very  probably,  in  reference  to  Lev.  xix,  15,  and  Deut.  xvi,  19. 
"  Remove  not  the  ancient  landmark  which  thy  fathers  have  set  " 
(chap,  xxii,  28)  refers  to  Deut.  xix,  14,  "  Thou  shalt  not  remove 
thy  neighbour's  landmark,  which  they  of  old  time  have  set  in  thine 
inheritance,  which  thou  shalt  inherit  in  the  land  that  the  Lord  thy 
God  giveth  thee  to  possess  it."  "  He  that  by  usury  and  unjust  gain 
increaseth  his  substance  "  (chap,  xxviii,  8)  has  reference  to  the  Mo 
saic  law  forbidding  the  loaning  of  any  thing  upon  interest  (Deut. 
xxiii,  19).  "  He  that  giveth  unto  the  poor  shall  not  lack"  (chap, 
xxviii,  27)  seems  to  be  based  on  Deut.  xv,  7-10.  "Add  thou  not 
unto  his  [God's]  words  "  (chap,  xxx,  6)  is  derived  from  Deut.  iv,  2, 
and  xii,  32.  The  prayer  of  Agur  (xxx,  8,  9)  appears  to  be  founded 
in  part  on  Deut.  viii,  8-17,  where  the  Israelites  are  warned  against 
forgetfulness  of  God  when  their  goods  shall  increase. 


192  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

The  Book  of  Psalms.  The  Psalms — the  earliest !  of  which  were 
written  about  B.  C.  1050  by  David,  and  the  last  about  B.  C.  450 — 
show  an  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  their  authors  with  the  Penta 
teuch.  No  fair  minded  critic  can  deny  our  statement.  The  tes 
timony  is  altogether  free  from  suspicion,  and  is  of  the  most  satis 
factory  kind.  Many  of  the  Psalms  furnish  internal  evidence  of 
the  age  in  which  they  were  written.  They  afford  incidental 
knowledge  of  the  existing  institutions  in  Israel,  and  refer  to  the 
Mosaic  history  in  the  most  natural  way,  and  allude  to  the  law,  the 
statutes,  and  the  commandments,  showing  the  existence  of  a  Mo 
saic  code  which  had  a  divine  authority  among  them.  All  the  ref 
erences  to  the  Mosaic  law  and  history  prove  that  they  were  the 
same  that  we  now  possess.  In  the  very  first  Psalm,  written,  in  all 
probability,  by  David,  the  good  man  is  represented  as  delighting 
"  in  the  law  of  the  Lord ;  and  in  his  law  doth  he  meditate  day  and 
night."  In  Psalm  xv,  5,  we  have  a  reference  to  the  law  prohibiting 
lending  on  interest :  "  He  that  putteth  not  out  his  money  to  usury." 
The  eighteenth  Psalm  was  undoubtedly  written  by  David,  and  there 
is  a  reference  to  him  in  the  fiftieth  verse.  In  verse  22  we  have  a  ref 
erence  to  the  Mosaic  law,  "  For  all  his  judgments  were  before  me, 
Psalms  of  Da-  and  I  did  not  put  away  his  statutes  from  me."  In  Psa. 
%£ffgZ  xxxiii,  6-9,  we  have  an  allusion  to  Gen.  i,  "By  the  word 
Pentateuch.  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made.  ...  He  spake,  and 
it  was  done;  he  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast."  This  Psalm,  in  all 
probability,  belongs  to  David.  And  in  Psalm  Ix,  7,  which  also  be 
longs  to  him,  we  have  a  reference  to  Gen.  xlix,  10:  "Judah  is  my 
lawgiver."  Compare  this  with  4<  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from 
Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet,"  etc. 

In  Psalm  Ixxviii,  attributed  to  Asaph,  a  contemporary  of  David,  and 
bearing  internal  evidence  of  belonging  to  that  age,  we  have  a  sketch 
of  the  history  of  the  Israelites  from  the  time  that  God  visited  them  in 
Egypt  until  David's  reign.  In  the  first  part  of  this  Psalm  it  is  declared 
that  Jehovah  "  established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a  law 
in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they  should  make 
them  known  to  their  children,  .  .  .  who  should  arise  and  declare  them 
to  their  children."  Here  we  have  a  reference  to  the  command  which 
God  gave  the  children  of  Israel,  recorded  in  Deut.  vi,  7  :  "  And  thou 
shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  children ; "  and,  "  but  teach 
them  thy  sons,  and  thy  sons'  sons  "  (chap,  iv,  9)  ;  "  and  ye  shall  teach 
them  your  children  "  (chap,  xi,  19).  The  command  to  teach  the 
children  the  law  is  found  only  in  Deuteronomy,  and  we  thus  have  a 

1  We  must  except  from  this  statement  the  Ninetieth  Psalm,  which  is  attributed 
to  Moses. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  193 

very  old  testimony  to  this  book.  In  the  history  of  Israel  belonging 
to  Ihe  Mosaic  age,  it  is  evident  that  the  author  of  the  Psalm  had  the 
Pentateuch  before  him.  In  describing  the  plagues  of  Egypt  he  has 
in  most  cases  used  the  very  words  of  the  Pentateuch. 

In  Psalm  Ixxxix,  30,  31,  it  is  said,  in  reference  to  David,  in  whose 
age  it  was  written,  "  If  his  children  forsake  my  law,  and  walk  not 
in  my  judgments;  if  they  break  my  statutes,  and  keep  not  my  com 
mandments."  This  evidently  refers  to  a  written  Mosaic  . 

Israelitisn  nis- 

code.    Psalm  xcix,  which  seems  to  belong  to  the  time  of  tory exhibited 
David,  contains  an  allusion,  after  naming  Moses,  Aaron, 
and  Samuel,  to  the  Mosaic  legislation  :  "  He  spake  unto  them  in  the 
cloudy  pillar :  they  kept  his  testimonies,  and  the  ordinance  that  he 
gave  them." 

Psalm  cv  contains  a  history  of  the  Israelites  from  Abraham  until 
their  settlement  in  Canaan.  Here  the  history  in  the  Pentateuch  is 
closely  followed,  and  occasionally  some  of  the  facts  are  thrown  into 
a  poetical  form.  All  the  parts  of  this  Psalm  stand  closely  connected, 
and  it  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  Psalm  Ixxviii,  which  evident 
ly  belongs  to  Asaph,  David's  chief  musician.  The  one  hundred 
and  fifth  Psalm,  as  far  as  the  226.  verse,  is  a  part  of  the  Psalm  of 
which  it  is  said,  "  Then  on  that  day  David  delivered  first  (this)  to 
thank  the  Lord  into  the  hand  of  Asaph  and  his  brethren  "  (i  Chron. 
xvi,  7).  The  psalm  in  Chronicles  also  contains  substantially  the 
96th  Psalm.  The  last  part  of  the  io5th  was  omitted  on  the  occa 
sion  as  not  being  suitable  to  the  purpose,  and  another  substituted 
in  its  place.  Also  Psalm  cvi  recapitulates  the  Mosaic  history  in 
such  a  way,  with  so  many  particulars,  as  to  show  an  acquaintance 
with  the  Pentateuch.  It  belongs,  most  probably,  to  the  age  of 
David. 

In  the  references  to  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  Davidic  Psalms, 
the  terms  employed,  and  the  kinds  of  sacrifices  and  of 
ferings,  are  the  same  as  those  of  the  Pentateuch.     For 

example  :  "  Sacrifice  (mr)  and  offering  (nnr:)  thou  didst  offflnss 

~  v  T    •  &S  in  ttiG  Pen* 

not  desire  .  .  .  burnt  off er ing  (nSiy)  and  sin  offering  (nNtpn)1  tateuch. 
hast  thou  not  required  "  (Psa.  xl,  6) ;  and,  "  I  will  not  reprove  thee  for 
thy  sacrifices  nor  thy  burnt  offerings  "  (Psa.  1,  8).  We  have  already 
referred  to  the  Mosaic  institutions  mentioned  in  the  Psalms.  In  the 
Davidic  Psalms  we  have,  law  (rnfn,  torati),  statute  (ph,  a  prescribed 
statute],  judgment  (D3tp),  and  commandment  (m*o),  the  identical  terms 
of  the  Pentateuch.  In  view  of  all  these  facts,  how  absurd  is  the  re 
mark  of  Dr.  Davidson a  that  the  law,  the  statutes  Judgments,  testimonies 

1  The  form  in  the  Pentateuch  is  nXtSH.          *  Introduction,  pp.  120,  121. 
VOL.  I. — 13 


194  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

of  the  Lord,  found  in  the  Psalms,  are  general  language,  "referring 
not  so  much  to  the  injunctions  peculiar  to  the  Mosaic  religion  as  to 
the  moral  requirements  which  conscience,  aided  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  is  able  to  apprehend." 

But  besides  the  references  to  the  statutes  and  institutions  of  the 
Pentateuch,  we  find  the  following  in  Psa.  xl,  7  :  "  Lo,  I  come  with 
the  volume  of  the  book  prescribed  unto  me."  Gesenius  understands 
this  volume  to  be  the  book  of  the  law  ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  refer  it 
to  any  thing  else  and  make  good  sense.  This  psalm  is  ascribed  to 
David,  and  the  inscription  to  the  chief  musician  shows  that  it  was 
written  before  the  exile. 

The  examination  of  the  Davidic  Psalms  establishes 

Recognition  of  .  . 

the  Pentateuch  the  fact  that  the  Pentateuch  existed  and  was  recognised 
inDavicrstime.  in  thg  agg  of  David  as  containing  the  law  of  Moses  and 

the  authentic  history  of  the  patriarchs  and  of  the  Mosaic  times. 


CHAPTER  XXL 

TESTIMONIES  FURNISHED  BY  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOKS 
OF  SAMUEL  AND  KINGS  TO  THE  EXISTENCE  AND  THE  AU 
THORITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

T)EFORE  giving  the  passages  that  refer  to  the  institutions  in  the 
*^  Pentateuch,  we  wish  to  direct  attention  to  those  which  speak 
of  the  book  of  the  law,  or  to  the  written  law  of  Moses.  In  the 
charge  which  David,  when  about  to  die  (about  B.  C.  1015),  gives 
his  son  Solomon,  he  refers  to  the  Pentateuch  in  these  words : 

David's   refer-    "  An(i  keeP  the   charSe    of  the   Lord   tn7  G°d   to   walk 

ences  to  the  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his  statutes,  and  his  command- 
lch*  ments,  and  his  judgments,  and  his  testimonies,  as  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses"  etc.  (i  Kings  ii,  3).  In  2  Kings 
xvii,  34-37,  we  have  the  following  reference  to  the  Pentateuch : 
"The  law  and  the  commandment  which  the  Lord  commanded 
the  children  of  Jacob,  whom  he  named  Israel;  with  whom  the 
Lord  had  made  a  covenant.  .  .  .  And  the  statutes,  and  the  ordi 
nances,  and  the  law,  and  the  commandment  which  he  wrote  for 
you,"  etc.  But  the  most  important  testimony  to  the  Pentateuch 
The  "Book  of  is  to  be  found  in  the  discovery  of  the  book  of  the 
the  Law."  law,  in  the  temple  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  King 
Josiah  (about  B.  C.  624).  It  is  stated  in  2  Kings  xxii  that 
when  the  Jewish  temple  was  repaired  by  the  pious  Josiah,  Hilkiah 
the  high  priest  found  in  it  a  book  of  the  law,  and  gave  it  to  Shaphan 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  195 

the  scribe,  who  read  it  himself,  and  then  read  it  to  the  king.  The 
Jewish  monarch  was  so  astonished  at  its  contents  that  he  rent  his 
clothes,  and  sent  Hilkiah  and  others  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  for  him, 
"  and  for  the  people,  and  for  all  Judah,  concerning  the  words  of  this 
book  that  is  found :  for  great  is  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  that  is  kin 
dled  against  us,  because  our  fathers  have  not  hearkened  unto  the 
words  of  this  book,  to  do  according  unto  all  that  which  is  written 
concerning  us."  When  the  king's  messengers  came  to  Huldah  the 
prophetess  she  sent  back  word  to  the  king:  "Thus  saith  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel,  Tell  the  man  that  sent  you  to  me,  ...  I  will  bring  evil 
upon  this  place,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  thereof,  even  all  the 
words  of  the  book  which  the  king  of  Judah  hath  read."  This  book 
is  called  by  the  historian  in  the  next  chapter  (xxiii,  25)  "  the  law  of 
Moses."  It  is  evident  that  Huldah  the  prophetess  was  already  ac 
quainted  with  the  book,  and  the  king's  language  shows  that  his  an 
cestors  must  have  been  acquainted  with  at  least  its  purport,  for  he 
supposes  them  guilty  for  not  obeying  it.  He  is  not  surprised  at  the 
existence  of  such  a  book,  but  at  its  threatening  contents. 

This  book  of  the  law  seems  to  have  been  the  temple  copy  ;  nor  is 
there  anything  strange  respecting  its  former  concealment  or  its  dis 
covery.  For  fifty-seven  years  preceding  Josiah's  reign  a  fearful 
apostasy  existed  in  Judah.  Manasseh,  in  whose  steps  Amon  trod, 
had  reigned  for  fifty-five  years.  "  He  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord,  after  the  abominations  of  the  heathen,  whom  the 
Lord  cast  out  before  the  children  of  Israel.  For  he  built  up  again  the 
high  places  which  Hezekiah  his  father  had  destroyed  ;  and  he  reared 
up  altars  for  Baal,  and  made  a  grove  [Astarte,  or  Venus],  as  did 
Ahab  king  of  Israel ;  and  worshipped  all  the  host  of  heaven,  and 
served  them.  And  he  built  altars  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  of 
which  the  Lord  said,  In  Jerusalem  will  I  put  my  name.  And  he 
built  altars  for  all  the  host  of  heaven  in  the  two  courts  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord  "  (2  Kings  xxi,  2-5). 

It  is  not  strange,  under  such  circumstances,  that  the  book  of  the 
law  had  been  neglected,  and  its  threats  quite  forgotten.  VIews0f  Bleek 
Both  Bleek  and  Davidson  concede  that  this  copy  of  Davidson,  and 
the  Mosaic  law  contained  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  k 
Schrader,  in  his  edition  of  De  Wette's  Introduction,  thinks  that  the 
book  of  the  law  found  in  the  temple  refers  exclusively  to  Deuteron 
omy.  This  is  not  in  the  least  probable,  since  the  other  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  as  he  admits,  were  in  existence  at  that  time.  The 
threatenings  of  the  book  of  the  law  referred  to  in  2  Kings  xxii  seem 
to  refer  especially  to  Deut.  xxviii,  xxix. 

After  the  book  of  the  law  was  read  to  the  king,  he  gathered  aU 


106  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  prophets  and  priests,  and  read 
the  book  to  them  also.  He  commenced  a  reformation  in  both 
Judah  and  Samaria,  and  in  the  same  year  held  a  passover,  such  as 
had  not  before  been  held  either  in  the  days  of  the  judges  or  the 
kings  (2  Kings  xxiii,  22). 

In  2  Kings  xxi,  7,  8,  the  writer  states  that  in  the  declarations  the 
LORD  made  to  David  and  Solomon  he  said,  "  If  they  v/ill  observe  to 
do  according  to  all  the  law  that  my  servant  Moses  commanded  them. " 

We  have  already  seen  that  in  the  times  of  David,  and  in  the  sub 
sequent  ages,  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  is  mentioned  as  an  ex 
isting  authoritative  document.  We  have  traced  it  from  the  times  of 
the  Maccabees  up  to  the  time  of  David.  We  see  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  during  all  these  ages  it  was  the  identical  Pentateuch  that  we  now 
have.  All  the  quotations  from  it  and  references  to  it  show  this  fact. 

The  next  inquiry  is,  Does  the  history  of  the  times  from  King 
Josiah  (when  it  is  granted  that  a  large  part  of  the  Pentateuch  already 
existed)  back  to  David  and  Samuel  indicate  the  existence  and  au 
thority  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  This  must  be  answered  in  the  affirma 
tive,  as  the  existing  institutions  and  the  references  to  the  Pentateuch 
show.  We  may  begin  with  the  two  books  of  Kings.  In  i  Kings 
i,  39,  it  is  stated  that  "  Zadok  the  priest  took  a  horn  of  oil  out  of  the 
tabernacle  and  anointed  Solomon."  This  holy  oil  of  the  tabernacle 
and  its  uses  are  described  in  Exodus  xxx,  23-30.  In  the  command 
given  to  slay  Joab,  who  had  been  guilty  of  murder,  it  is  said  :  "  That 
thou  mayest  take  away  the  innocent  blood  "  (chap,  ii,  31),  evidently 
in  accordance  with  Numbers  xxxv,  33,  "  The  land  cannot  be  cleansed 
of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but  by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed 
it."  In  chap,  iii,  15,  mention  is  made  of  "  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
of  the  Lord,"  before  which  Solomon  stood  "  and  offered  up  burnt 
offerings,  and  offered  peace  offerings."  The  sacrifices  here  named 
are  those  of  the  Mosaic  law;  and  the  "ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord  "  is  the  exact  language  of  Deut.  x,  8,  and  xxxi,  9,  25.  In  chapter 
iv,  13,  are  mentioned  "  the  towns  of  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh,  which 
are  in  Gilead  to  him  also  pertained  the  region  of  Argob,  which  is 
in  Bashan,  threescore  great  cities  with  walls  and  brazen  bars,"  which 
is  manifestly  taken  from  Numbers  xxxii,  41,  and  Deut.  iii,  4,  5.  In 
chap,  vi,  12,  God  says  to  Solomon,  "  If  thou  wilt  walk  in  my  stat 
utes,  and  execute  my  judgments,  and  keep  all  my  commandments  to 
walk  in  them,"  etc.  Here  the  precepts  of  the  Lord  are  expressed 
in  the  very  words  of  the  Pentateuch.  Compare  ver.  13,  "And  I  will 
dwell  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  will  not  forsake  my  people 
Israel,"  with  Exod.  xxv,  8,  "That  I  may  dwell  among  them;  "  and 
Deut.  xxxi,  6,  "  He  [Jehovah]  will  not  fail  thee,  nor  forsake  thee." 


OF    THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  197 

In  the  temple  which  Solomon  built  to  Jehovah  we  find  the  ar 
rangement  of  the  sanctuary  described  in  Exodus  car 
ried  out  so  far  as  it  was  applicable.  We  have  within,  a  tweeu  soio- 
"most  holy  place."  The  same  is  found  in  Exod.  SftJSJ 
xxvi,  33,  and  Lev.  xvi,  2.  Compare  "  The  whole  altar  tuary  in  EX- 
that  was  by  the  oracle  he  overlaid  with  gold  "  with 
Exod.  xxx,  3.  "Thou  shalt  overlay  it  [the  altar]  with  pure  gold." 
Also  compare  "  And  within  the  oracle  he  made  two  cherubim  "  (chap. 
vi,  23),  "And  they  stretched  forth  the  wings  of  the  cherubim,  so  that 
the  wing  of  the  one  touched  the  one  wall,  and  the  wing  of  the  other 
cherub  touched  the  other  wall ;  and  their  wings  touched  one  an 
other  "  (ver.  27) ;  Exod.  xxv,  20,  and  xxxvii,  9.  Solomon  also  made 
a  table  of  gold,  upon  which  was  placed  the  showbread  (chap,  vii,  48,) 
which  was  required  by  Exod.  xxv,  30. 

In  chapter  viii,  2,  we  find  that  "  all  the  men  of  Israel  assembled 
themselves  unto  King  Solomon  at  the  feast  in  the  month  Ethanim, 
which  is  the  seventh  month."  This  was  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  which 
Moses  commanded  the  children  of  Israel  to  keep  in  the  seventh 
month  (Lev.  xxiii,  34).  "  And  the  priests  took  up  the  ark  "  (ver.  3). 
This  was  in  accordance  with  Deut.  xxxi,  9.  "  And  they  brought  up 
the  ark  of  the  Lord,  and  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  all 
the  holy  vessels  that  were  in  the  tabernacle,  even  these  did  the  priests 
and  the  Levites  bring  up"  (ver.  4).  The  phrase,  "tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,"  is  the  one  used  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  priests 
also  brought  the  ark  of  the  covenant  into  the  most  holy  place. 

"  And  I  have  set  there  a  place  for  the  ark,  wherein  is  the  covenant 
of  the  Lord  which  he  made  with  bur  fathers,  when  he  brought  them 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt"  (chap,  viii,  21).  This  covenant  of  the 
Lord  here  referred  to  by  Solomon  is  evidently  the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses.  It  is  "  the  book  of  the  covenant "  mentioned  in  Exod.  xxiv,  7, 
which  Moses  wrote  and  delivered  to  the  priests  (Deut.  xxxi,  9). 
In  Deut.  xxxi,  24-26,  it  is  stated  that  when  Moses  had  made  an  end 
of  writing  the  book  of  the  law  he  commanded  the  priests  to  put  it 
in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant ;  and  thus  there  is  no  con 
tradiction  of  the  statement  (i  Kings  viii,  9):  "There  was  nothing 
in  the  ark  save  the  two  tables  of  stone,  which  Moses  put  there  at 
Horeb,"  etc.,  in  which  we  have  a  reference  to  the  Mosaic  origin  cf 
these  tables  as  given  in  Exod.  xxv,  16;  xxxi,  18. 

The  language  of  Solomon  in  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple  contains  several  quotations  from  the  Pentateuch  :  Paral|els  ^^ 

Who  "keepest  covenant  and  mercy  "  (i  Kings  viii,  23),  is   tained  in  soi- 
i  r  T-W  ••  /".  u  -ITTI          i        omon's  prayer, 

the  exact  language  of  Deut.  vii,  9.     Compare     When  thy 

people  Israel  be  smitten  down  before  the  enemy,  because  they  have 


198  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

sinned  against  thee,  and  shall  turn  again  to  thee  "  (ver.  33),  with  Lev. 
xxvi,  17,  and  Deut.  xxviii,  25.  "  When  heaven  is  shut  up  and  there  is 
no  rain,  because  they  have  sinned  against  thee,"  etc.  (ver.  35),  is  of  sim 
ilar  import  to  Lev.  xxvi,  19,  and  Deut.  xxviii,  23.  Compare  "  If  there 
be  in  the  land  famine,  if  there  be  pestilence,  blasting,  mildew,  locust,  or 
if  there  be  caterpillar  "  (ver.  37),  with  Deut.  xxviii,  2 1,  22,  38.  "  For 
thou  didst  separate  them  from  among  all  the  people  of  the  earth,  to  be 
thine  inheritance,  as  thou  spakest  by  the  hand  of  Moses  thy  servant, 
when  thou  broughtest  our  fathers  out  of  Egypt  "  (ver.  53).  Here  it  is 
impossible  to  escape  the  similarity  to  Exod.  xix,  5,  "  Then  ye  shall  be 
a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  above  all  people  ;  "  and  to  Deut.  xiv,  2, 
"  The  Lord  had  chosen  thee  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  himself; ' 
and  to  Deut.  ix,  29,  "Yet  they  are  thy  people  and  thine  inherit 
ance."  And  when  Solomon  blessed  the  people,  he  said:  " There 
hath  not  failed  one  word  of  all  his  good  promise,  which  he  promised 
by  the  hand  of  Moses  his  servant  "  (ver.  56).  It  is  evident  that 
Solomon  refers  to  ^.written  history  of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  Com 
pare  "  Israel  shall  be  a  proverb  and  a  byword  among  all  people  ' 
(chap,  ix,  7),  with  "  Thou  shalt  become  ...  a  proverb,  and  a  byword, 
among  all  nations  "  (Deut.  xxviii,  37).  In  "  and  they  shall  say, 
Why  hath  the  Lord  done  thus  unto  this  land,  and  to  this  house  ? 
and  they  shall  answer,  Because  they  forsook  the  Lord  their  God, 
who  brought  forth  their  fathers  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  etc. 
(chap,  ix,  8,  9),  we  have  almost  the  identical  words  of  Deut.  xxix, 
24-26.  "  Three  times  in  a  year  did  Solomon  offer  burnt  offerings 
and  peace  offerings  upon  the  altar  which  he  built  unto  the  Lord  " 
(chap,  ix,  ver.  25) :  this  seems  to  mean  at  the  three  great  festivals 
established  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  passage  xi,  2,  refers  to  Exod. 
xxxiv,  1 6,  and  to  Deut.  vii,  3,  4,  in  forbidding  matrimonial  alliances 
between  the  Israelites  and  the  heathen.  This  reference,  however, 
is  made  by  the  historian  himself. 

When  the  ten  tribes  revolted  from  under  Rehoboam,  and  made 
Jeroboam  king  (B.  C.  975),  the  latter  built  Shechem,  and  endeavoured 
to  establish  himself  in  his  kingdom.  But  the  greatest  obstacle  to 
injunctions  of  the  separate  existence  of  the  ten  tribes  was  the  religious 

the  Pentateuch    ....  ..  .    „       . 

held  the  Jews  bond  existing  between  all  the  tribes,  especially  the  unity 
Jolt 'Troi^  Jit*  of  the  sanctuarv-  "And  Jeroboam  said  in  his  heart, 
hoboain.  Now  shall  the  kingdom  return  to  the  house  of  David ; 

if  this  people  go  up  to  do  sacrifice  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  at 
Jerusalem,  then  shall  the  heart  of  this  people  turn  again  unto  their 
lord,  even  unto  Rehoboam  king  of  Judah  "  (i  Kings  xii,  26,  27).  It  is 
evident  from  this  that  Jeroboam  regarded  his  people  as  feeling  bound 
to  attend  the  great  festivals  at  Jerusalem.  Such  a  feeling  of  obliga- 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  199 

fion  on  the  part  of  the  rebellious  tribes  could  spring  only  from  an  in 
junction  in  the  Pentateuch,  such  as  we  find  in  Deut.  xii,  5,  6,  "But 
unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your 
tribes  to  put  his  name  there,  even  unto  his  habitation  shall  ye  seek, 
and  thither  thou  shalt  come  :  and  thither  ye  shall  bring  your  burnt 
offerings."  "  Whereupon  the  king  took  counsel,  and  made  two  calves 
of  gold,  and  said  unto  them,  It  is  too  much  for  you  to  go  up  to  Jeru 
salem  :  behold  thy  gods,  O  Israel,  which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt.  And  he  set  the  one  in  Bethel,  and  the  _ 

TllG    08,1  YGS     &t 

other  put  he  in  Dan  "  (i  Kings  xii,  28,  29).  This  was  Dan  and  Beth- 
a  renewal  of  the  worship  of  the  calf  (or  Apis)  by  Aaron  ^^^ 
and  other  Israelites,  borrowed  from  Egypt.  The  an-  Apis  and  Mne- 
cient  Egyptians  worshipped  Osiris,  their  great  god,  at  vls' 
Memphis,  under  the  form  of  the  sacred  bull  Apis ;  and  at  Heliop- 
olis,  under  that  of  the  ox,  Mnevis.  Diodorus  Siculus  tells  us  that 
the  worship  of  Apis  arose  in  the  idea  that  the  soul  of  Osiris  mi 
grated  into  this  animal,  and  that  through  him  Osiris  continued  to 
manifest  himself  to  man  through  successive  ages.  The  Egyptians 
had  also  figures  of  their  gods,  which  "  were  only  vicarious  forms 
not  intended  to  be  looked  upon  as  real  personages  "  (Wilkinson). 

When  Aaron  instituted  this  worship  in  the  desert,  the  intention 
was  to  worship  the  golden  calf  as  a  symbol  of  Jehovah,  as  is  appar 
ent  from  Aaron's  declaration,  "To-morrow  is  a  feast  of  Jehovah." 
Jeroboam  had  become  well  acquainted  with  the  calf  worship  of 
Egypt  during  his  residence  there  (i  Kings  xi,  40),  and  the  two 
calves,  in  imitation  of  Apis  and  Mnevis  among  the  Egyptians,  were 
intended  to  symbolize  Jehovah.  But  there  was  a  further  object  in 
view.  The  Pentateuch  commanded  all  the  males  to  appear  three 
tiroes  a  year  at  the  great  festivals  before  the  Lord  in  one  place,  which 
must  have  been  inconvenient  to  many.  Hence  his  language,  *'  It  is 
too  much  for  you  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem."  To  remedy  this  incon 
venience  he  set  up  two  calves — one  in  Bethel,  and  the  other  in  Dan 
— to  accommodate  the  people  in  Middle  and  in  Northern  Palestine. 
In  the  institution  of  this  worship  he  used  the  very  language  of  Aaron 
It  was  not  necessary  for  Jeroboam  to  have  but  one  place  of  worship, 
for  he  had  not  the  sacred  ark  of  the  covenant. 

The  author  of  2  Chron.  states  :  "  The  priests  and  the  Levites  that 
were  in  all  Israel  resorted  to  him  [Rehoboam]  out  of  all  their  coasts. 
For  the  Levites  left  their  suburbs  and  their  possession,  and  came  to 
Judah  and  JerusaleM  :  for  Jeroboam  and  his  sons  had  cast  them  off 
from  executing  the  priest's  office  unto  the  Lord  "  (chap,  xi,  13,  14). 
Jeroboam  "  made  priests  of  the  lowest  of  the  people,  which  were  not 
of  the  sons  of  Levi "  (i  Kings  xii,  3 1 ).  The  ground  of  his  rejection  of 


200  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  sons  of  Levi  evidently  was,  because  they  could  not  be  brought 
to  disobey  the  plain  injunctions  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  commands  of 
Jehovah,  and  to  assist  Jeroboam  in  his  idolatrous  worship.  Rathei 
than  serve  him  they  preferred  to  sacrifice  all  their  possessions.  Ac 
cording  to  2  Chron.  xi,  16,  the  pious  Israelites  from  the  ten  tribes  still 
continued  to  come  to  Jerusalem  to  sacrifice  to  Jehovah.  All  this 
presupposes  the  existence  and  authority  of  the  Pentateuch, 

"  Jeroboam  ordained  a  feast  in  the  eighth  month,  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  month,  like  unto  the  feast  that  is  in  Judah."  He  offered  sac 
rifice  on  the  altar  in  Bethel  on  this  day  of  the  eighth  month,  "  which 
he  had  devised  of  his  own  heart"  (i  Kings  xii,  32,  33).  According 
to  Leviticus  xxiii,  34,  the  festival  was  to  be  kept  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  seventh  month,  so  that  Jeroboam  changed  only  the  month. 

In  i  Kings  xviii,  31,  "Jacob,  unto  whom  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came,  saying,  Israel  shall  be  thy  name,"  we  have  a  reference  to  Gen. 
xxxii,  28.  In  the  sacrifice  offered  by  Elijah  on  Mount  Carmel 
(  i  Kings  xviii,  33),  it  is  stated  that  "  he  put  the  wood  in  order,  and 
cut  the  bullock  in  pieces."  Here  we  find  a  compliance  with  Lev. 
i,  5-8  :  "  He  shall  kill  the  bullock  .  .  .  and  he  shall  flay  the  burnt 
offering,  and  cut  it  into  his  pieces  .  .  .  and  lay  the  wood  in  order 
upon  the  fire."  "  And  he  [Elijah]  went  in  the  strength  of  that  meat 
Numerous  par-  forty  days  and  forty  nights  unto  Horeb  the  Mount  of 
aiieis  between  God  "  (chap>  xix  8)  In  Exodus  this  mountain  is  so 

the  books  of  the 

Kings  and  the  called,  and  there  is  a  parallelism  in  the  passage  to  the 
Pentateuch.  fagt  Qf  «  forty  dayg  and  forty  njghts  »  of  Moses 


xxxiv,  28).  "  And  Naboth  said  to  Ahab,  The  Lord  forbid  it  me, 
that  I  should  give  the  inheritance  of  my  fathers  unto  thee  "  (chap. 
xxi,  3).  This  is  in  reference  to  Lev.  xxv,  23  :  "  The  land  shall  not 
be  sold  forever;"  and  to  Num.  xxxvi,  7  :  "So  shall  not  the  inherit 
ance  of  the  children  of  Israel  remove  from  tribe  to  tribe."  On  this 
ground  Naboth  refused  to  sell  his  vineyard  to  Ahab. 

In  the  contrivance  of  Jezebel  to  effect  the  death  of  Naboth  we 
recognize  the  law  of  the  Pentateuch  :  *  "  And  set  two  men,  sons  of 
Belial,  before  him,  to  bear  witness  against  him,  saying,  Thou  didst 
blaspheme  God  and  the  king.  And  then  carry  him  out,  and  stone 
him,  that  he  may  die  "  (chap,  xxi,  10).  Compare  with  this,  "Thou 
shalt  not  resile  God,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people  "  (Exodus 
xxii,  28)  ;  and,  "  He  that  blasphemeth  the  name  of  the  Lord,  he 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death,  and  all  the  congregation  shall  certainly 
stone  him  "  (Lev.  xxiv,  16).  The  law  of  Moses  required  at  least 
two  witnesses  to  put  any  one  to  death  (Numbers  xxxv,  30;  Deuter 
onomy  xvii,  6).  "And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  morning,  when  the 

1  Here  we  have  proofs  that  the  law  of  Moses  had  force  among  the  ten  tribes. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  201 

meat  offering  was  offered  "  (2  Kings  iii,  20).  Here  we  have  an  allu 
sion  to  the  usual  time  of  the  morning  sacrifice  as  prescribed  in 
Exod.  xxix,  39,  40.  "  The  creditor  is  come  to  take  unto  him  my 
two  sons  to  be  bondmen  "  (chap,  iv,  i).  The  law  of  Moses  (Lev. 
xxv-  39>  4°)  allowed  debtors  to  be  sold  for  their  debts  for  a  term  of 
years.  In  the  case  referred  to  the  sons  of  the  widow  were  de 
manded.  "  About  this  season,  according  to  the  time  of  life,  thou 
shalt  embrace  a  son  "  (chap,  iv,  16).  This  language,  addressed  by 
Elisha  to  the  Shunammite  woman,  is  based  on  Gen.  xviii,  10:  "I 
will  certainly  return  unto  thee  according  to  the  time  of  life  j  and,  lo, 
Sarah  thy  wife  shall  have  a  son."  "  And  there  were  four  leprous  men 
at  the  entering  in  of  the  gate  "  (chap,  vii,  3).  The  Mosaic  law  required 
lepers  to  be  excluded  from  the  camp  (Lev.  xiii,  46).  In  accordance 
with  this  law  we  find  that  these  lepers  did  not  go  into  the  city  to 
announce  to  the  king  the  flight  of  the  Syrians,  but  called  the  porter. 

In  2  Kings  xii,  4,  mention  is  made  of  "  the  money  of  every  one 
that  passeth  the  account,"  that  is,  numbered,  as  prescribed  in  Exod. 
xxx,  13,  where  every  one  that  is  numbered  is  required  to  pay  half  a 
shekel  for  the  service  of  the  tabernacle.  "  The  trespass  money  and 
sin  money  was  not  brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  :  it  was  the 
priests'"  (chap,  xii,  16).  In  the  Mosaic  laws  respecting  sin  offering 
and  trespass  offering  the  money  paid  was  the  property  of  the  priests 
(Lev.  v,  15,  18;  vii,  7;  Num.  xviii,  9).  When  Amaziah  was  con 
firmed  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  (about  B.  C.  839),  it  is  stated  (chap, 
xiv,  5,  6)  that  he  put  to  death  the  servants  who  had  slain  "his  fa 
ther.  But  the  children  of  the  murderers  he  slew  not :  according  unto 
that  which  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  wherein  the 
Loid  commanded,  saying,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for 
the  children,  nor  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the  fathers;  but 
every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own  sin."  This  is  the  language 
of  Peut.  xxiv,  16,  and  it  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch. 
"And  he  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  the  high  places,  and  on  the 
hills,  and  under  every  green  tree  "  (chap,  xvi,  4).  This  is  borrowed 
from  Deut.  xii,  2.  In  chap,  xvi,  15,  Ahaz  commands  the  priest  to 
offer  upon  the  great  altar  "  the  morning  burnt  offering,  and  the 
evening  meat  offering."  These  offerings  were  required  by  Exod. 
xxix,  39-41- 

In  chap,  xviii,  4,  we  have  a  reference  to  the  history  of  the  Penta 
teuch  :  "  He  [Hezekiah]  brake  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent  that 
Moses  had  made :  for  unto  those  days  the  children  of  Israel  did 
burn  incense  to  it."  Its  institution  by  Moses  for  the  healing  of  the 
Israelites  is  mentioned  in  Num.  xxi,  9.  In  chap,  xxi,  6,  it  is  said  that 
Manasseh  "  observed  times,  and  used  enchantments,  and  dealt  with 


202  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

familiar  spirits  and  wizards :  he  wrought  much  wickedness  in  the 
Enchantments  siSht  of  tne  Lord,  to  provoke  him  to  anger-"  The  law 
-conveying  of  of  Moses  absolutely  forbade  these  things :  "  Neither  shall 
the  ark  of  God.  ,  i  •  -n  j 

ye  use  enchantment,   nor  observe  times.     Regard  not 

them  that  have  familiar  spirits,  neither  seek  after  wizards,  to  be  de 
nied  by  them  "  (Lev.  xix,  26,  31).  Very  similar  is  Deut.  xviii,  10-12. 

In  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel  we  find  several  references  to  the 
Pentateuch.  It  is  said  in  chap,  vi,  6,  7,  that  when  the  ark  of  God 
was  shaken,  while  it  was  conveyed,  Uzzah  put  forth  his  hand  to  steady 
it,  and  that  God  smote  him  and  he  died.  This  is  in  accordance  with 
the  regulation  of  Moses,  by  which  no  one  except  Aaron  and  his  sons 
was  allowed  to  touch  the  ark,  upon  the  penalty  of  death  (Num. 
iv,  15).  When  David  brought  the  ark  of  Jehovah  to  Jerusalem,  he 
placed  it  in  the  tabernacle,  and  offered  burnt  offerings  and  peace 
offerings  before  the  Lord  (chap,  vi,  17).  These  offerings  were  made 
in  accordance  with  the  Pentateuch.  In  chap,  vii,  6,  God  says  :  "  I 
have  not  dwelt  in  any  house  since  the  time  that  I  brought  up  the 
children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  but  have  walked 
in  a  tent  and  in  a  tabernacle.'"  Tent  and  tabernacle  are  the  words 
of  the  Pentateuch  expressing  the  sanctuary  set  up  in  the  desert. 
The  tent  was  the  covering  placed  over  the  tabernacle. 

When  David  had  been  made  king  over  Israel,  in  expressing  his 
gratitude  to  God  he  exclaimed  :  "  Thou  art  great,  O  Lord 

Lanpruajre     of    *  .... 

David  found  in  God  i  for  there  is  none  like  thee,  neither  is  there  any 
Deuteronomy.  God  beg^es  thee,  according  to  all  that  we  have  heard 
with  our  ears.  And  what  one  nation  in  the  earth  is  like  thy  people, 
even  like  Israel,  whom  God  went  to  redeem  for  a  people  to  himself, 
and  to  make  him  a  name,  and  to  do  for  you  great  things  and  terri 
ble,  for  thy  land,  before  thy  people,  which  thou  redeemedst  to  thee 
from  Egypt,  from  the  nations  and  their  gods?  "  (2  Sam.  vii,  22,  23). 
This  language  is  based  on  Deut.  iv,  7,  32-35.  In  chap,  viii,  3,  it  is 
said  that  David  smote  the  king  of  Zobah  as  he  went  to  recover  his 
bonier  at  the  river  Euphrates.  Here  we  have  a  reference  to  Gen. 
xv,  1 8,  where  God  promises  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  the  land  ex 
tending  from  the  river  of  Egypt  to  the  river  Euphrates,  and  which 
Israel  had  not  yet  possessed.  In  Nathan's  parable  to  David  of  the 
rich  man  who  took  the  poor  man's  lamb,  the  Jewish  monarch  de 
clared  that  he  should  restore  the  lamb  fourfold  (chap,  xii,  6).  The 
Mosaic  law  (Exod.  xxii,  i)  required  that  four  sheep  should  be  given 
for  one  that  was  stolen.  The  treatment  that  the  king's  wives  should 
receive  for  his  crime  (chap.  xii.  n)  seems  to  refer  to  Deut.  xxviii,  30. 
In  chap,  xv,  24,  Zadok,  and  all  the  Levites  with  him,  are  represented 
as  bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God.  This  was  in  accordance 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  203 

with  Num.  iv,  15.  Respecting  the  numbers  of  Israel,  it  is  said: 
"  As  the  sand  is  by  the  sea  for  multitude "  (chap.  411uslong  In 
xvii,  n).  This  is  based  on  Gen.  xxii,  17.  In  chap,  isamueitothe 
xxii,  23,  David  says:  "For  all  his  judgments  were  be-  Pentateuch- 
fore  me  :  and  as  for  his  statutes,  I  did  not  depart  from  them." 
These  laws  are  evidently  the  code  of  the  Pentateuch. 

We  find  also  in  First  Samuel  a  considerable  number  of  refer 
ences  to  either  the  language  or  institutions  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  very  first  part  of  the  history  in  this  book  exhibits  to  us  at 
Shiloh  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  in  which  was  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  whither  the  people  assembled  to  sacrifice  to  Jehovah 
(about  1170  B.  C).  It  is  said  (chap,  i,  3)  that  Elkanah  "went  up 
out  of  his  city  yearly  to  worship  and  to  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  of  hosts  in 
Shiloh."  "  Elkanah  and  all  his  house  went  up  to  offer  unto  the  Lord 
the  yearly  sacrifice  and  his  vow  "  (chap,  i,  21).  This  was  evidently 
the  yearly  passover,  the  chief  of  the  three  festivals  of  the  Israelites, 
which  the  males  only  were  required  to  attend.  Nor  does  the  lan 
guage  exclude  the  attendance  of  Elkanah  himself  at  the  other  two 
festivals. 

In  Hannah's  prayer  we  find  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxxii,  39,  "  The 
Lord  killeth  and  maketh  alive  "  (chap,  ii,  6).  And  in  chap,  ii,  2, 
there  is  a  probable  allusion  to  Deut.  iii,  24,  and  to  xxvii,  4.  In 
rhnp.  ii,  18,  we  find  Samuel  ministering  to  the  Lord.  Samuel 
belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  (i  Chron.  vi,  28,  34-38).  And 
in  chap,  ii,  22,  it  is  stated  that  the  women  were  assembled  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  This  was  the  ar 
rangement  existing  in  the  time  of  Moses  (Exod.  xxxviii,  8).  In  i  Sam. 
ii,  27,  28,  it  is  said,  "And  there  came  a  man  of  God  unto  Eli,  and 
said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Did  I  plainly  appear  unto  the 
house  of  thy  father,  when  they  were  in  Egypt  in  Pharaoh's  house? 
and  did  I  choose  him  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  be  my  priest, 
to  offer  upon  mine  altar,  to  burn  incense,  to  wear  an  ephod  before 
me?  and  did  I  give  unto  the  house  of  thy  father  all  the  offerings 
made  by  fire  of  the  children  of  Israel  ?  "  Here  the  reference  to  the 
institutions  of  the  Pentateuch  is  too  plain  to  be  mistaken.  Compare 
Exod.  xxviii,  i,  4;  Num.  xvi,  5;  xviii,  i,  7;  Lev.  ii,  3,  10,  ere., 
where  all  these  things  are  mentioned.  Compare  "I  said  indeed 
that  thy  house,  and  the  house  of  thy  father,  should  walk  before  me 
for  ever"  (chap,  ii,  30),  with  Exod.  xxix,  9:  "And  the  priest's  office 
shall  be  theirs  [Aaron  and  his  sons']  for  a  perpetual  statute." 

When  the  ark  of  God,  carried  away  by  the  Philistines,  brought 
upon  them  disaster,  and  they  became  anxious  about  its  return,  they 
concluded  to  restore  it  with  a  trespass  offering,  thus  showing  their 


204  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

knowledge  of  such  an  offering  among  the  Israelites  as  is  prescribed 
in  the  Pentateuch.     Compare  chap,  vi,  3,  with  Lev.  v,  15 

The  language  of  the  Philistines  upon  the  occasion  shows  a  knowl 
edge  of  the  facts  of  the  Pentateuch  :  "  Wherefore  then  do  ye  hard 
en  your  hearts,  as  the  Egyptians  and  Pharaoh  hardened  their  hearts? 
when  he  had  wrought  wonderfully  among  them,  did  they  not  let  the 
people  go,  and  they  departed  ?  "  (i  Sam.  vi,  6).  Compare  chap,  xiv, 
32,  33,  "And  the  people  did  eat  them  with  the  blood.  Then  they 
told  Saul,  saying,  Behold,  the  people  sin  against  the  Lord,  in  that 
they  eat  with  the  blood,"  with  Leviticus  xvii,  10,  "  And  whatso 
ever  man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that 
sojourn  among  you,  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood  ;  I  will  even 
set  my  face  against  that  soul  that  eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him  off 
from  among  his  people." 

"  I  remember  that  which  Amalek  did  to  Israel,  how  he  laid  wait 
for  him  in  the  way,  when  he  came  up  from  Egypt "  (chap,  xv,  2). 
Here  the  allusion  is  especially  to  Deut.  xxv,  17.  Before  Saul 
slaughtered  the  Amalekites  he  requested  the  Kenites  to  depart  from 
among  them  :  "  For  ye  showed  kindness  to  all  the  children  of  Israel, 
when  they  came  up  out  of  Egypt  "  (chap,  xv,  6).  In  Judges  i,  16, 
it  is  stated  that  the  children  of  the  Kenite,  Moses's  father-in-law 
went  up  with  the  children  of  Judah  into  the  desert  of  Judah.  From 
this  it  appears  that  the  Kenites  were  relatives  of  Moses,  and  are  to 
be  identified  with  Jethro  and  Hobab,  who  paid  him  friendly  visits 
in  the  desert  (Exod.  xviii,  5-27  ;  Num.  x,  29-32). 

"  The  Strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie  nor  repent :  for  he  is  not  a 
man,  that  he  should  repent  "  (chap,  xv,  29).  This  seems  to  repeat 
Num.  xxiii,  19:  "God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie  ;  neither  the 
son  of  man,  that  he  should  repent."  "  Sanctify  yourselves,  and  come 
with  me  to  the  sacrifice  "  (chapter  xvi,  5).  According  to  Exodus 
xix,  10,  for  a  meeting  of  a  very  sacred  and  solemn  character  the 
children  of  Israel  were  required  to  sanctify  themselves.  "  Behold, 
to-morrow  is  the  new  moon,  and  I  should  not  fail  to  sit  with  the 
king  at  meat "  (chap,  xx,  5).  The  new  moon  was  a  festive  day 
according  to  Numbers  x,  10.  In  chap,  xxi  mention  is  made  of  the 
showbread  before  the  Lord.  This  was  an  arrangement  presented 
in  Exod.  xxv,  30.  "And  Saul  had  put  away  those  that  had  familiar 
spirits,  and  the  wizards,  out  of  the  land  "  (chap,  xxviii,  3).  This  was 
carrying  out  Exodus  xxii,  18:  "Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to 
live."  "And  when  Saul  inquired  of  the  Lord,  the  Lord  answered 
him  not,  neither  bv  dreams,  nor  by  URIM,  nor  by  prophets  "  (chap, 
xxviii,  6).  Here  we  have  an  allusion  to  the  Mosaic  appointment 
(Num.  xxvii,  21),  where  it  is  commanded  respecting  Joshua:  "«He 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  205 

shall  stand  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  who  shall  ask  counsel  for  him 
after  the  judgment  of  URIM  before  the  Lord."  In  chap,  xxx,  24,  25, 
it  is  stated  that  David  made  it  a  statute  and  an  ordinance  for  Israel 
unto  this  day,  that  spoils  should  be  equally  divided  between  those 
who  fought  and  those  who  remained  with  the  stuff.  In  this  regula 
tion  David  seems  to  have  had  before  his  eyes  the  example  mentioned 
in  Num.  xxxi,  27,  where  no  general  precept  was  enjoined. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

TRACES  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  THE  BOOKS  OF  RUTH 
AND  JUDGES. 

HTHE  Book  of  Ruth.  As  the  Book  of  Ruth  contains  but  four 
-L  chapters,  we  are  not  to  expect  many  references  in  it  to  the 
Mosaic  history  and  laws. 

After  Naomi  and  her  daughter-in-law,  Ruth,  came  to  Bethlehem, 
we  find  Ruth  addressing  Naomi  in  the  following  language :  "  Let 
me  now  go  to  the  field,  and  glean  ears  of  corn  after  him  in  whose 
sight  I  shall  find  grace  "  (chap,  ii,  2).  This  she  did  upon  gaining 
her  mother-in-law's  consent,  and  the  act  was  in  accordance  with  the 
Mosaic  law :  **  And  when  ye  reap  the  harvest  of  your  land,  thou 
shalt  not  wholly  reap  the  corners  of  thy  field,  neither  shalt  thou 
gather  the  gleanings  of  thy  harvest.  .  .  .  thou  shalt  leave  them  for 
the  poor  and  stranger  "  (Lev.  xix,  9,  10).  We  find  the  same  precept 
in  Deut.  xxiv,  19. 

The  redemption  of  land  is  referred  to  in  chapter  iv,  4  :  "If  thou 
wilt  redeem  it,  redeem  it :  but  if  thou  wilt  not  redeem  it,  then  tell  me, 
that  I  may  know :  for  there  is  none  to  redee/n  it  besides  thee :  and 
I  am  after  thee.  And  he  said,  I  will  redeem  it ;  "  but  subsequently 
he  declined.  And  when  Ruth's  near  kinsman  refused  to  redeem  the 
inheritance  of  Naomi's  husband,  Boaz,  the  next  of  kin,  purchased  it, 
and  remarked  :  "  Moreover  Ruth  the  Moabitess,  the  wife  of  Mahlon, 
have  I  purchased  to  be  my  wife,  to  raise  up  the  name  of  the  dead 
upon  his  inheritance,  that  the  name  of  the  dead  be  not  cut  off  from 
among  his  brethren,"  etc.  (chap,  iv,  10).  Here  we  have  a  reference 
to  Deut.  xxv,  5-10,  in  which  are  prescribed  the  regulations  respect 
ing  the  marriage  of  a  brother  to  his  brother's  childless  widow,  that 
the  name  of  the  deceased  brother  "be  not  put  out  of  Israel." 

In  chap,  iv,  n,  12,  mention  is  made  of  Leah  and  Rachel,  and  of 
Pharez  and  Tamar,  from  the  Book  of  Genesis. 


£06  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Book  of  Judges.  The  Book  of  Judges  contains  many  allu 
sions  to  the  Books  of  Moses.  "  And  they  gave  Hebron  unto 
Caleb,  as  Moses  said"  (chap,  i,  20).  This  is  in  accordance 
with  Num.  xiv,  24,  where  God  declares  in  respect  to  Caleb, 
one  of  the  spies  who  went  to  Hebron,  "him  will  I  bring  into 
the  land  whereinto  he  went;  and  his  seed  shall  possess  it."  The 
same  declaration  is  also  made  in  Deut.  i,  36.  "I  made  you 
to  go  up  out  of  Egypt,  and  have  brought  you  unto  the  land 
which  I  sware  unto  your  fathers ;  and  I  said,  I  will  never  break 
my  covenant  with  you ;  and  ye  shall  make  no  league  with  the  in 
habitants  of  this  land ;  ye  shall  throw  down  their  altars  :  but  ye  have 
not  obeyed  my  voice"  (chap,  ii,  i,  2).  In  this  passage  we  have  a 
reference  to  Gen.  xvii,  7,  in  which  God  declares  to  Abraham  that 
his  covenant  with  him  shall  be  "  for  an  everlasting  covenant ;  "  to 
Deut.  vii,  2,  "Thou  shalt  make  no  league  [ma,  covenant]  with 
them ;  "  and  to  Deut.  xii,  3 :  "  Ye  shall  overthrow  their  altars,  and 
break  their  pillars."  In  chap,  vi,  21,  mention  is  made  of  unleavened 
cakes,  bread  that  was  appointed  in  various  parts  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Compare  chap,  vii,  3,  where  Gideon  says  to  his  host,  "  Whosoever 
is  fearful  and  afraid,  let  ,him  return  and  depart  early  from  Mount 
Gilead,"  with  Deut.  xx,  8,  where  the  following  direction  is  given  to 
the  officers,  to  be  observed  on  the  eve  of  a  battle  :  "  They  shall  say, 
What  man  is  there  that  is  fearful  and  fainthearted  ?  let  him.  go  and 
return  unto  his  house." 

When  Jephthah  was  about  to  fight  the  children  of  Ammon,  he 
sends  messengers  to  their  king,  to  give  him  a  summary  of  the  most 
important  circumstances  connected  with  the  affairs  of  the  children 
of  Israel  and  the  children  of  Ammon  (chap,  xi,  14-26).  This  nar 
rative  is  evidently  taken  from  the  Pentateuch,  for  the  points  of  co 
incidence  are  too  numerous  to  be  accidental.  We  have  mention  of 
the  Israelites  coming  to  the  Red  Sea,  just  as  we  find  in  Numbers 
xxxiii,  10 ;  the  arrival  in  Kadesh  (Num.  xiii,  26);  the  message  sent 
by  the  Israelites  from  that  place  to  the  king  of  Edom,  "Let  us 
pass,  I  pray  thee,  through  thy  country  "  (Num.  xx,  17),  and  the  re 
fusal  of  the  king  of  Edom ;  the  compassing  of  the  land  of  Edom,  and 
Quotations  in  the  land  of  Moab,  and  the  coming  by  the  east  side  of  the 

frSfuw^  land  of  Moab  (as  we  find  Num'  xxi>  4>  ")  J  the  pitching 
tateucn.  on  the  other  side  of  the  Arnon,  without  entering  Moab, 

which  is  stated  to  have  been  on  the  border  of  the  Arnon,  just  as  we 
read  in  Num.  xxi,  13;  the  sending  of  a  message  to  Sihon,  king  of 
the  Amorites,  substantially  as  we  find  it  in  Num.  xxi,  21,  22,  and 
his  refusal  to  let  Israel  pass  through ;  his  defeat,  and  the  occupation 
of  his  country  by  the  Israelites,  just  as  we  find  related  in  Numbers 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  207 

xxi,  21-25.      Reference  is  also  made  to  Balaam,  the  son  of  Zippor 
(chap,  xi,  25). 

When  the  birth  of  Samson  was  predicted,  Manoah's  wife  was 
charged  to  "  drink  not  wine  nor  strong  drink,  and  eat  not  any  un 
clean  thing  :  for,  lo,  thou  shalt  conceive  and  bear  a  son  ;  and  no 
razor  shall  come  on  his  head  :  for  the  child  shall  be  a  Nazarite 
unto  God  from  the  womb  "  (chap,  xiii,  4,  5).  Here  we  have  an  al 
lusion  to  the  law  of  the  Nazarite  in  Num.  vi,  2-5,  in  which  it  is 
enjoined  that  he  shall  drink  no  wine  nor  strong  drink  ;  and  that  no 
razor  shall  come  upon  his  head.  Then  said  Micah,  "  Now  know  I 
that  the  Lord  will  do  me  good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite  The  author  of 

to  my  priest  "  (chap.  xvii.  13).'    This  language  clearly   Judges       ac- 

,    V         .       ,       '     0/  *     quainted  with 

shows  that   the    priesthood  properly  belonged   to    the   the  whole  Le- 


family  of  Levi,  according  to  the  Mosaic  constitution. 
"  And  the  children  of  Israel  arose,  and  went  up  to  Bethel,  and  asked 
counsel  of  God,"  etc.  (chap,  xx,  18)  ;  with  this  compare  Numbers 
xxvii,  21  :  "He  shall  stand  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  who  shall  ask 
counsel  for  him  after  the  judgment  of  Urim  before  the  Lord."  In 
chap,  xx,  26,  we  find  the  Israelites  offering  to  Jehovah  burnt  offer 
ings  and  peace  offerings,  which  were  enjoined  by  the  Mosaic  law. 
Mention  is  also  made  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God  (chap. 
xx,  27),  before  which  was  standing  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar  the 
son  of  Aaron  (ver.  28).  In  chap,  xxi,  19,  reference  is  made  to  "a 
feast  of  the  Lord  in  Shiloh  yearly."  This  was,  doubtless,  the  pass- 
over.  "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel  :  every  man  did 
that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes"  (chap,  xxi,  25).  The  last 
part  of  this  verse  seems  to  have  been  taken  from  Deut.  xii,  8. 


208  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 

PROOF  OF    THE  EXISTENCE  AND   AUTHORITY  OF    THE   PEN 
TATEUCH   IN   THE   BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

OOME  of  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  as- 
^  sume  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  belongs  thereto,  thus  seeking  to 
get  rid  of  the  testimony  furnished  by  it  to  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic 
writings.  But  the  archaisms  of  the  Pentateuch  disappear  in  Joshua, 
showing  that  the  latter  was  not  written  by  the  same  author. 

In  the  very  first  chapter  we  have  a  reference  to  the  book  of  the 
References  in  *aw  °^  Moses :  "That  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  ac- 
josnuatoDeu-  cording,  to  all  the  law,  which  Moses  my  servant  com- 
teronoray.  manded  thee>  .  _  .  This  book  of  the  Jaw  shall  not  be_ 

part  out  of  thy  mouth  "  (verses  7,  8).  "The  Lord  your  God,  he  is 
God  in  heaven  above,  and  in  earth  beneath  "  (chap,  ii,  n).  This  is 
the  same  as  Deut.  iv,  39.  In  chap,  iii  the  priests  are  represented  as 
bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God.  This  is  in  accordance  with 
the  arrangement  in  Deut.  xxxi,  9,  25.  In  chap  v,  4-6  we  have  a 
statement  that  all  the  men  of  war  who  came  up  out  of  Egypt  per 
ished  in  the  wilderness,  in  which  Israel  wandered  forty  years  on  ac 
count  of  their  disobedience,  "  unto  whom  the  Lord  sware  that  he 
would  not  show  them  the  land  which  the  Lord  sware  unto  their 
fathers."  Here  there  is  the  clearest  reference  to  the  history  in  the 
Pentateuch,  especially  to  Num.  xiv,  23,  33. 

In  reference  to  the  king  of  Ai  it  is  said,  "  And  as  soon  as  the  sun 
was  down,  Joshua  commanded  that  they  should  take  his  carcass  down 
from  the  tree  "  (chap,  viii,  29).  So  in  reference  to  the  five  kings 
(chap,  x,  27),  "  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  time  of  the  going  down  of 
the  sun,  that  Joshua  commanded,  and  they  took  them  down  off  the 
trees."  In  both  of  these  passages  there  is  a  reference  to  the  com 
mand  in  Deut.  xxi,  22,  23,  where  it  is  enjoined  that  if  a  man  is  hung 
for  a  crime,  "  his  body  shall  not  remain  all  night  upon  the  tree, 
but  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  bury  him  that  day." 

In  chap,  viii,  30-35  we  find  that  Joshua  built  an  altar  to  Jehovah 
on  Mount  Ebal :  "  As  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  commanded 
the  children  of  Israel,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
an  altar  of  whole  stones,  over  which  no  man  hath  lifted  up  any  iron  : 
and  they  offered  thereon  burnt  offerings  unto  the  Lord,  and  sacrificed 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  209 

peace  offerings.  And  he  wrote  there  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the 
lau>  of  Moses,  which  he  wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of  Is 
rael.  .  .  .  And  afterward  he  read  all  the  words  of  the  law,  the  bless 
ings  and  cursings,  according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law.  There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded  which 
Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  with  the  women 
and  the  little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that  were  conversant  among 
them."  The  setting  up  of  stones  and  writing  upon  them,  the  words 
of  the  law,  the  building  of  an  altar  and  the  offering  of  sacrifice  on  it, 
are  prescribed  m  Deut.  xxvii,  1-8.  The  reading  of  the  law  before 
all  the  people  is  enjoined  in  Deut.  xxxi,  10-12. 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  reference  in  the  acts  of  Joshua 
to  the  Pentateuch,  especially  Deuteronomy.  In  chap.  Reference  in 
xi,  12,  15,  20,  23,  respecting  the  extermination  of  the  toSthe'Spenta! 
Canaanites  and  the  distribution  of  their  lands  among  teucn. 
the  tribes  of  Israel,  it  is  added,  "  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses,' 
a  reference  to  Num.  xxxiii,  52-54,  Exod.  xxxiv,  n,  Deut.  vii,  2, 
etc.  "  Only  unto  the  tribe  of  Levi  he  gave  none  inheritance ;  the 
sacrifices  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  made  by  fire  are  their  in 
heritance,  as  he  said  unto  them  "  (chap,  xiii,  14).  Here  we  have 
a  reference  to  the  support  of  the  Levites  according  to  Num.  xviii, 
19-24. 

The  historical  facts  in  chaps,  xiii  and  xiv,  in  relation  to  the  Mo 
saic  times,  are  the  same  as  those  contained  in  the  Penta-    Historical  facts 
.    .          .  ,     ,/    .      i  AT  same  in  Joshua 

teuch.    In  chap,  xiv,  9,  it  is  said :     And  Moses  sware  on    as  in  the  Pen. 

that  day,  saying,  Surely  the  land  whereon  thy  feet  have  tateuch. 
trodden  shall  be  thine  inheritance  and  thy  children's  for  ever ;  be 
cause  thou  hast  wholly  followed  the  Lord."  With  this  compare 
Deut.  i,  36,  in  reference  to  this  same  Caleb :  "  To  him  will  I  give 
the  land  that  he  hath  trodden  upon,  and  to  his  children,  because  he 
hath  wholly  followed  the  Lord." 

The  account  of  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  (chap,  xvii,  3,  4) 
corresponds  with  Num.  xxvii,  1-7.  In  chap,  xx  we  have  an  account 
of  the  appointment  of  the  six  cities  of  refuge,  as  directed  by  Moses, 
to  whom  reference  is  made.  Compare  this  chapter  with  Num.  xxxv, 
6,  ii,  14.  In  chapter  xxi  the  Levites  are  assigned  forty-eight  cities 
with  their  suburbs,  as  directed  in  Num.  xxxv,  7.  When  the  children 
of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  had  assisted  their 
brethren  in  subduing  the  land  west  of  the  Jordan,  they  returned  to 
their  tents  at  the  request  of  Joshua.  Afterwards  they  returned  to  the 
Jordan,  and  built  on  its  west  side,  where  the  children  of  Israel  had 
crossed,  a  great  altar.  The  building  of  this  altar  gave  much  offence 
to  the  children  of  Israel  west  of  the  Jordan,  and  they  gathered  them- 
VOL.  I.— 14 


210  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

selves  together  at  Shiloh  to  fight  against  the  two  tribes  and  a  half 
that  were  regarded  as  rebels  on  account  of  this  act.  **  Thus  saith 
the  whole  congregation  of  the  Lord,  What  trespass  is  this  that  ye 
have  committed  against  the  God  of  Israel,  to  turn  away  this  day 
from  following  the  Lord,  in  that  ye  have  builded  you  an  altar,  that 
ye  might  rebel  this  day  against  the  Lord.  .  .  .  And  it  will  be,  seeing 
ye  rebel  to-day  against  the  Lord,  that  to-morrow  he  will  be  wroth 
with  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel.  Notwithstanding,  if  the  land 
of  your  possession  be  unclean,  then  pass  ye  over  unto  the  land  of  the 
possession  of  the  Lord,  wherein  the  Lord's  tabernacle  dwelleth,  and 
take  possession  among  us  :  but  rebel  not  against  the  Lord,  nor  rebel 
against  us,  in  building  you  an  altar  besides  the  altar  of  the  Lord 
our  God." 

The  two  tribes  and  a  half  immediately  disclaimed  any  intention 
of  offering  sacrifices  upon  this  altar,  as  they  had  built  it  simply  as  a 
witness  between  themselves  and  the  other  tribes  of  their  right  to  par 
ticipate  in  the  sacrifices  and  offerings,  and  as  a  pattern  of  the  altar  in 
Shiloh.  They  said,  "God  forbid  that  we  should  rebel  against  the 
Lord,  and  turn  this  day  from  following  the  Lord,  to  build  an  altar 
for  burnt  offerings,  for  meat  offerings,  or  for  sacrifices,  besides  the 
altar  of  the  Lord  our  God  that  is  before  his  tabernacle  "  (chap. 
xxiO.  This  satisfied  the  tribes  west  of  the  Jordan. 

This  history  clearly  shows  that  it  was  regarded  as  rebellion  against 
The  Levitical  God  to  offer  sacrifice  anywhere  except  upon  the  altar  before 
forc^in^tiine  ^e  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  Accordingly,  the  pre- 
of  theJudges.  Cept  in  Lev.  xvii,  3-5,  8,  9 — which  prohibits  the  offering 
of  sacrifice  anywhere  except  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation — had  full  force. 

In  the  following  passage  there  is  a  clear  reference  to  the  Penta 
teuch  :  "  Be  ye  therefore  very  courageous  to  keep  and  to  do  all  that 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  "  (chap,  xxiii,  6).  The 
threats  in  the  last  part  of  chap,  xxiii  are  evidently  taken  from  the 
Pentateuch.  The  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel  and 
of  the  patriarchs,  in  the  first  part  of  chap,  xxiv,  is  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  was  evidently  based  on  it.  "  And  Joshua 
wrote  these  words  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God"  (chap,  xxiv,  26). 
This  book  of  the  law  is  evidently  our  Pentateuch,  for  all  the  passages 
in  Joshua  touching  upon  the  Israelitish  history  are  taken  from  it,  or, 
at  least,  accord  with  it,  and  in  some  instances  actually  refer  to  it. 
Final  proof  of  ^e  Book  of  Joshua,  which  contains  so  many  refer- 
tbe  antiquity  of  ences  to  the  Pentateuch,  must  have  been  written  before 
the  time  of  David,  for  it  is  said  in  chap,  xv,  63,  "As 
for  the  Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  children  of  Judah 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  211 

could  not  drive  them  out :  but  the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children 
of  Judah  at  Jerusalem  unto  this  day."  But  David  drove  them  out 
(2  Sam.  v,  6,  7).  When  Joshua  was  written  the  Canaanites  were 
still  living  in  Gezer  (chap,  xvi,  10) ;  but  Solomon  captured  Gezer, 
burned  it  with  fire,  and  slew  the  Canaanites  in  it  (i  Kings  ix,  16). 

In  this  book  Zidon  is  the  conspicuous  Phoenician  city,  for  it  is 
called  great  Zidon  (chap,  xi,  8 ;  xix,  28) ;  while  Tyre  is  only  once 
mentioned — the  city,  the  fortress  of  Tyre  (chap,  xix,  29).  But  in 
the  ages  subsequent  to  David  and  Solomon  Tyre  held  the  first  and 
Zidon  a  secondary  position.  This  is  certainly  a  proof  of  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  book. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

REFLECTIONS  ON  THE  REFERENCES  TO  THE  PENTATEUCH 
IN  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  IN  THE  POST- 
MOSAIC  AGE. 

/TNHERE  is  no  way  of  avoiding  the  force  of  the  evidence  in  favour 
A  of  the  Pentateuch  furnished  in  the  post-Mosaic  history  of  the 
Israelites,  except  that  of  denying  the  credibility  of  this  history.  But 
even  in  such  case,  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  prophets  and  some 
of  the  Psalms  of  David  and  Asaph  remains  untouched. 

But  the  history  of  the  Israelites  in  the  Old  Testament  bears  every 
mark  of  truth,  and  it  has  been  confirmed  in  many  in-  Impartiallt  ^ 
stances  by  the  monuments  of  Assyria.  There  is  an  im-  Old  Testament 
partiality  shown  in  the  Old  Testament  narrative  such  as  is 
found  nowhere  else.  The  faults,  vices,  and  even  crimes,  of  the 
greatest  of  the  Hebrews  are  recorded  by  the  impartial  pen  of  the 
historian,  by  whom  their  actions  are  weighed,  and  approved  or  con 
demned  as  they  accord  with  or  depart  from  the  great  principles  of 
the  moral  law,  especially  the  Mosaic  theological  and  ethical  system. 
Bleek  treats  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  historical  writers  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  the  Pentateuch  in  a  very  slighting  Existence  of 

manner.     "  As  far  as  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Pentateuch  in 

time  of  Judges 
Testament  are  concerned,    says  he,     it  is  very  difficult  acknowledged 

to  determine  definitely  what  belongs  to  the  authors  byBIeek- 
themselves  of  the  books,  and  what  belongs  to  the  times  and  persons 
whose  history  they  relate.  Especially  in  the  discourses  which  the 
actors  deliver,  it  can  seldom  be  maintained  that  the  very  words  which 
they  used  are  given  us,  and  it  can  easily  be,  that  the  writer  has  at 
tributed  to  persons  of  former  times  single  expressions  which  have 


212  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

been  taken  from  the  relations  and  representations  of  his  own  age."1 
This,  he  thinks,  is  true  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  of  Chronicles  espe 
cially,  and  partly  also  of  the  Books  of  Kings.  "  In  respect  to  the 
Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel,"  he  observes,  "  it  has  already  been  re 
marked,  that  the  manner  in  which  they  speak  of  different  altars  that 
were  erected  to  Jehovah  in  different  places  without  any  indication 
on  the  part  of  the  writer  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  law,  and  displeas 
ing  to  Jehovah,  would  be  incomprehensible  if,  at  the  time  of  the  orig 
inal  authors  of  these  books,  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy  had  ex 
isted  and  had  been  acknowledged."9  This  is  a  tacit  acknowledg 
ment  that  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  existing  in  the 
age  of  the  Judges. 

Respecting  the  Psalms  Bleek  thinks  that  they  do  not  furnish 
much  evidence  for  the  Pentateuch,  as  it  is  for  the  most  part  un 
certain  to  what  age  they  belong ;  at  least,  they  furnish  nothing  that 
refers  to  Deuteronomy.  But  there  are  Psalms  which  undoubtedly 
belong  to  the  age  of  David,  and  the  remarks  of  Bleek  are  not  to  the 
point. 

In  the  prophets  he  finds  general  allusion  to  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
history,  but  no  certain  or  probable  reference  to  Deuteronomy.  We 
beg  that  these  views  of  Bleek  be  compared  with  the  instances  we 
have  furnished  of  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  quotations  from  it, 
found  almost  everywhere  in  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

In  regard  to  Deuteronomy,  we  have  pointed  out  many  references 
to  this  book  in  the  post-Mosaic  history — some  of  them  of  such  a 
character  as  are  not  to  be  evaded.  For  instance,  when  the  historian 
states  (2  Kings  xiv,  5,  6)  that  Amaziah  (about  B.  C.  830)  did  not 
slay  the  children  of  his  father's  murderers,  on  the  ground  that  such 
a  proceeding  was  contrary  to  what  was  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses  (in  reference  to  Deut.  xxiv,  16),  and  uses  the  very  words 
of  the  law  (found  only  in  Deuteronomy),  "  The  fathers  shall  not  be 
put  to  death  for  the  children,  neither  shall  the  children  be  put  to 
death  for  the  fathers :"  if  the  account  of  Amaziah  is  real  history, 
this  king  must  have  had  the  Pentateuch  before  him,  of  which  Deu 
teronomy  formed  a  part.  And  when  we  find  that  the  priests  "  taught 
in  Judah,  and  had  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  with  them  "  (about 
B,  C.  912),  it  is  real  history  or  it  is  nothing. 

It  often  happens  that  in  relating  the  actions  of  men,  their  conduct 
is  based  upon  the  Mosaic  law  in  such  a  way  that  if  the  passages  re 
ferring  to  that  law  be  unhistorical,  the  history  of  which  they  form 
an  integral  part  must  be  rejected  along  with  them. 

In  the  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch  in  Solomon's  piayer  at  the 
1  Einleitung,  p.  339.  9  Ibid.,  p.  339. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  213 

dedication  of  the  temple,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they 
were  not  the  real  words  of  Solomon,  but  merely  part   Solomon's  ded- 

of  a  prayer  made  up  by  the  historian — after  the  man-   icat°ry  prayer, 

as     given     to 
rer  of  the  speeches  in  Thucydides  and  Sallust — attrib-   us:  MS  exact 

uted  to  him.  In  an  age  when  writing  was  common,  words- 
and  many  of  the  Psalms  were  written,  it  is  very  probable  that  such 
a  prayer  on  so  important  an  occasion  was  written  down  at  the  time. 
The  custom  of  making  up  speeches  for  historical  characters  was 
foreign  to  the  Hebrews.  Even  if  the  references  in  the  post-Mosaic 
writers  to  the  Pentateuch  were  nothing  more  than  the  expressions 
of  the  writers  themselves,  they  would  be  of  great  value  as  showing 
that,  in  their  judgment,  there  was  no  period  since  Moses  in  which 
the  Pentateuch  did  not  exist. 


CHAPTER   XXV. 

THE  ALLEGED  NON-OBSERVANCE  OF  PORTIONS  OF  THE 
MOSAIC  LAW  FOR  SEVERAL  CENTURIES  AFTER  MOSES, 
CONSIDERED  IN  ITS  BEARING  UPON  THE  GENUINENESS 
OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

TF  we  find  certain  Mosaic  institutions  in  the  Pentateuch  neglected 
-*•  by  the  Hebrews,  it  would  be  rash  to  infer  from  such  neglect  the 
non-existence  of  such  institutions.  That  wicked  Hebrews  would 
violate  the  Mosaic  code  was  to  be  expected.  But  even  if  we  find 
pious  Israelites  disregarding  some  of  the  Mosaic  enactments,  it  af 
fords  no  certain  ground  for  the  conclusion  that  these  enactments  had 
no  existence.  Who  doubts  the  piety  of  the  Quakers?  Yet  with  all 
their  Christian  meekness  and  morality  they  reject  baptism,  which 
is  clearly  enjoined  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Church  of  Rome 
forbids  the  sacramental  cup  to  the  laity,  contrary  to  the  teachings  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  adoration  of  images,  practiced  to  a  great 
extent  in  that  Church,  is  also  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  Scripture. 
In  regard  to  the  practice  of  Christian  States,  how  violation  of 
widely  do  some  of  their  laws  differ  from  the  docrines  of  th at t" ereTno 
Christ,  especially  the  laws  of  divorce!  The  Mosaic  reg-  law. 
ulations  requiring  sacrifices  to  be  offered  at  the  door  of  the  taber 
nacle  of  the  congregation  only  (Lev.  xvii,  3-9),  and  sacrifices  and 
other  kinds  of  offerings  to  be  brought  to  the  place  which  Jehovah 
should  choose  out  of  all  the  tribes,  when  the  Israelites  should  have 
settled  in  Canaan  (Deut.  xii,  5,  n,  14,  18),  seem  to  have  been  vio- 


214  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

lated  in  various  instances  in  the  period  intervening  between  Moses 
and  the  building  of  the  temple  by  Solomon.  The  apparent  viola 
tion  of  these  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  has  led  some  to  reject  their 
Mosaic  origin.  This  has  been  especially  the  case  with  the  precept 
requiring  the  offerings  to  be  brought  to  one  place  which  Jehovah 
should  choose.  But  it  must  be  observed  that  the  precepts  of  the  Pen- 
General  com-  tateuch  respecting  the  place  of  sacrifice  were  generally 

piiance  with  obeyed,  even  in  the  unsettled  condition  of  Israel  in  the 
the  precepts  as,  «•  «  •  *  -n  /-  T  i  o 

to  the  place  of   days  of  the  judges.     From  the  days  of  Joshua  to  bam- 

Bacrmce.  uej  fae  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  was  pitched  in 

Shiloh,  where  ministering  priests  were  found,  and  whither  the  Israel 
ites  resorted  to  keep  the  great  annual  festival.  Of  this  we  have 
already  given  ample  proof.  In  the  time  of  Joshua  it  was  regarded 
as  treason  to  offer  sacrifice  anywhere  except  upon  the  altar  before 
the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  in  Shiloh  (Josh,  xxii),  and  in  no 
instance  was  sacrifice  offered  in  any  other  place.  The  holy  place 
(English  version,  sanctuary)  mentioned  in  Joshua  xxiv,  26,  in  which 
stood  an  oak,  was  probably  a  spot  that  had  become  sacred,  either  in 
the  history  of  the  patriarchs  or  during  the  conquest  of  Canaan, 
when  Joshua  came  to  Gerizim  and  Ebal. 

In  the  history  of  the  times  of  the  Judges,  we  find  in  several  in 
stances  sacrifices  offered  to  Jehpvah  in  other  places  than  Shiloh. 
But  the  obvious  reason  for  the  offering  of  these  irregular  sacrifices 
was  the  appearance  of  Jehovah  in  each  place.  It  was  in  the  taber 
nacle  that  Jehovah  usually  manifested  himself  to  his  people,  and  by 
virtue  of  this  the  sacrifices  were  to  be  made,  and  the  pious  Israel 
ite  might  easily  infer  that  such  extraordinary  appearances  of  God 
away  from  the  tabernacle  justified,  or  even  required,  a  sacrifice  to 
be  offered  upon  the  spot.  Instances  of  this  we  find  in  the  sacrifice 
at  Bochim  (Judg.  ii,  5),  and  in  that  offered  by  Manoah  (xiii,  19).  Still 
further,  we  find  a  command  of  God  to  Gideon  to  throw  down  the 
altar  of  Baal,  and  to  build  an  altar  to  Jehovah,  and  to  offer  burnt 
sacrifice  (Judg.  vi,  25,  26). 

In  Judges  xx,  26,  it  is  said  that  all  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all 
the  people,  offered  burnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings  before  Jeho 
vah  at  Bethel.  But  it  is  added  in  the  very  next  verse,  that  "  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  God  was  there  in  those  days,  and  Phinehas, 
the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron,  stood  before  it  in  those  days." 
It  was  the  ark  of  God  that  was  all  important,  and  without  this  the 
tabernacle  was  of  little  consequence.  The  children  of  Israel,  it 
would  appear,  brought  the  ark  of  God  to  Bethel,  when  they  came 
up  to  fight  the  Benjamites  at  Gibeah.  It  was  placed  at  Bethel  be 
cause  that  was  not  only  a  spot  sacred  in  their  history,  but  also  con- 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  215 

venient  to  their  encampment.  Mention  is  also  made  (Judg.  xxi,  4) 
in  connexion  with  the  war  against  the  children  of  Benjamin  of 
another  offering  at  Bethel. 

Shiloh  was  the  seat  of  the  tabernacle  from  the  days  of  Joshua  until 
at  least  the  death  of  Eli,  when  the  ark  of  God  was  cap-  shiioh  a  sa- 
tured  by  the  Philistines.  It  is  evident  that  Shiloh  was  cred place, 
the  place  chosen  of  Jehovah  for  his  worship.  Hence  the  language 
of  Psalm  Ixxviii,  60 :  "  So  that  he  forsook  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh 
the  tent  which  he  placed  among  men;  "  and  of  Jeremiah  vii,  12  : 
"  But  go  ye  now  unto  my  place  which  was  in  Shiloh,  where  I  set  my 
name  at  the  first,  and  see  what  I  did  to  it  for  the  wickedness  of  my 
people  Israel."  In  2  Sam.  vii,  6,  God  declares  that  from  the  time 
that  he  brought  the  children  of  Israel  up  out  of  Egypt  unto  that  day, 
he  had  walked  in  a  tent  and  in  a  tabernacle.  About  a  hundred  years 
after  the  ark  had  been. captured  by  the  Philistines — who  kept  it  but 
seven  months,  and  sent  it  back  to  the  Israelites — it  was  brought 
from  the  house  of  Abinadab  to  Jerusalem  by  David,  and  put  in  a 
tent  he  had  prepared  for  it. 

In  the  beginning  of  Solomon's  reign  we  find  the  tabernacle  in 
Gibeon  (i  Chron.  xvi,  39 ;  2  Chron.  i,  3).  It  is  impossible  to  say  how 
long  it  had  been  there.  During  the  one  hundred  years  Pause  in  flxed 
from  the  death  of  Eli  to  the  building  of  the  temple  by  place  for  wor- 
Solomon  there  was  no  fixed  place  for  divine  worship — 
the  ark  was  in  one  place  and  the  tabernacle  in  another.  Shiloh  had 
been  rejected,  but  Jerusalem  was  not  yet  selected  and  fully  prepared 
for  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark.  In  this  confused  state  it  is  said :  "  Only 
the  people  sacrificed  in  high  places,  because  there  was  no  house  built 
unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  until  those  days  "  (i  Kings  iii,  2). 

In  the  time  of  Samuel,  after  the  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Philis 
tines,  we  find  that  sacrifice  was  offered  at  Gilgal  (i  Sam.  xi,  15). 
Most  probably  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  was  then  there. 

Here  the  question  arises  how  far  were  these  practices  contrary  to 
the  commands  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  Two  Mosaic  precepts  bear  upon 
this  point,  the  one  in  Lev.  xvii,  3-9,  requiring  sacrifices  to  be  offered 
only  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  ;  the  other 
in  Deut.  xii,  enjoining  them  to  be  offered  in  the  place  which  Je 
hovah  should  choose  out  of  all  the  tribes.  There  seems  to  have 
been  a  general  compliance  with  the  first  of  these  precepts,  and  also 
with  the  second  while  the  ark  and  tabernacle  remained  NO  real  vioia- 

at  Shiloh.     The  principal  reason  for  the  command  to   tion  oi  the  pre- 

*  cept  enjoining 

offer  sacrifice  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  seems  to   place  of  sacri- 

have  been  to  prevent  idolatry;  for  every  offering  made   flce> 

there  was  presented  to  Jehovah,  whose  presence  was  manifested  in  the 


216  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

tabernacle.  Hence  it  is  added  :  "  That  they  may  bring  them  unto 
the  Lord."  That  idolatry  is  the  principal  offence  against  which 
provision  is  made,  appears  also  from  the  language  following  the 
precept,  "  And  they  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices  unto  devils, 
after  whom  they  have  gone  a  whoring."  Accordingly  under  these 
circumstances  sacrifices  would  naturally  enough  be  offered  to  Jeho 
vah  wherever  he  appeared  to  the  Israelites. 

In  respect  to  the  place  chosen  out  of  all  the  tribes  to  which  alone 
sacrifices  should  be  brought,  it  is  added,  "  When  he  giveth  you  rest 
from  all  your  enemies  round  about  "  (Deut.  xii,  10).  And  this  seems 
to  be  a  necessary  condition  :  for  it  might  be  inconvenient,  and  even 
impossible,  to  go  up  three  times  a  year  to  some  fixed  locality,  which 
might  be  held  by  the  enemies  of  Israel ;  or  the  people  might  be  ob 
structed  in  their  attempts  to  leave  home,  or  their  presence  might  be 
absolutely  required  there.  In  the  age  of  Samuel  the  Israelites  were 
frequently  engaged  in  war  with  the  Philistines,  and  a  portion  of  the 
time,  at  least,  they  were  completely  in  their  power;  for  it  is  said 
(i  Sam.  xiii,  19,  20),  "  Now  there  was  no  smith  found  throughout  all 
the  land  of  Israel;  for  the  Philistines  said,  Lest  the  Hebrews  make 
them  swords  or  spears.  But  all  the  Israelites  went  down  to  the  Phil 
istines  to  sharpen  every  man  his  share,  and  his  coulter,  and  his  axe, 
and  his  mattock."  Is  it  a  matter  of  wonder,  under  these  circum 
stances,  that  there  was  irregularity  in  the  observance  of  the  precepts 
concerning  sacrifice  ?  What  an  overwhelming  proof  of  the  non- 
existence  of  the  Pentateuch  among  the  Jews — if  we  did  not  abso 
lutely  know  differently — would  the  present  violation  on  their  part 
of  some  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Mosaic  polity  afford  ?  The 
modern  Jews  do  not  slay  the  paschal  lamb ;  they  offer  no  sacrifices 
to  God ;  their  males  do  not  go  up  three  times  a  year  to  Jerusalem  ; 
the  Rabbies,  their  teachers,  are  not  exclusively  of  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
to  say  nothing  of  other  violations  of  the  law. 

The  various  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  consistent  respecting 
the  place  of  worship.  After  the  ten  commandments  were  given,  it 
was  enjoined  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  build  an  altar  to  the 
Lord  and  offer  sacrifices  thereon,  with  the  promise :  "  In  every 
place  where  I  shall  record  my  name  [that  is,  shall  appoint  for 
divine  worship]  I  will  come  unto  thee,"  etc.  (Exod.  xx,  24).  Here 
the  place  is  left  indefinite.  But  when  the  tabernacle  had  been  built, 
it  was  enjoined  upon  the  Israelites  to  bring  their  offerings  only  to  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  (Lev.  xvii,  3-9).  And 
when  the  Israelites  were  about  to  enter  Canaan,  they  were  directed 
ro  bring  their  offerings  in  that  land  to  the  place  which  Jehovah 
should  choose  (Deut.  xii,  5,  n,  14).  This  indicates  that  the  tab- 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  217 

ernacle  is  no  longer  to  be  migrating,  but  to  stand  in  a  fixed  locality. 
The  very  existence  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which  is  acknowl 
edged  to  date  from  Moses,  would  seem  to  require  one  sole  place  of 
worship  and  offerings.  In  Exod.  xxiii,  14,  17,  19,  a  part  of  the 
legislation  acknowledged  to  be  the  oldest,  the  males  are  required  to 
appear  three  times  a  year  before  the  Lord,  and  the  Israelites  to  bring 
the  first  of  their  firstfruits  into  the  house  of  their  God.  This,  too, 
seems  to  look  to  one  sanctuary.  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint 
anywhere  in  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  that  the  Israelites  were  at 
liberty  to  sacrifice  to  God  where  they  pleased.  Unity  of  God> 
unity  of  sanctuary,  and  unity  of  the  people,  are  fundamental  ideas 
in  the  Pentateuch.  There  could  be  no  surer  method  of  leading 
the  people  to  idolatry  than  by  allowing  them  to  sacrifice  on  high 
places  where  other  divinities  than  Jehovah  might  be  worshipped. 
But  when  the  sacrifices  were  offered  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  in  which  was  the  sacred  ark,  where  Jehovah 
manifested  himself,  idolatry  was  impossible. 

It  is  incredible  that  after  the  temple  had  been  built,  and  the 
command  to  sacrifice  only  in  the  place  which  Jehovah  should 
choose  was  a  standing  precept  in  Deut.  xii,  5,  etc.,  the  injunction 
in  Lev-  xvii,  3-9,  should  have  been  invented  and  attributed  to 
Moses,  especially  as  it  is  enjoined  :  "  This  shall  be  a  statute  to 
them  forever  throughout  their  generations  (verse  7). 

The  Hebrew  prophets  recognize  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  as  the 
sole  place  for  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  Thus  Joel  (about  B.  C.  870), 
"  Jehovah  dwells  in  Zion  "  (iii,  17).  The  temple  is  the  place  for 
religious  worship  (ii,  15-17).  "Jehovah  shall  utter  his  voice  from 
Jerusalem "  (Amos  i,  2).  "  The  Lord  from  his  holy  temple " 
(Micah  i,  2).  "  The  Lord  of  hosts  dwelleth  in  mount  Zion  "  (Isa. 
viii,  1 8).  "  Shall  worship  Jehovah  in  the  holy  mount  at  Jerusalem  " 
(xxvii,  13).  "For  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law "  (ii,  3). 
Similar  is  Micah  iv,  2.  The  calf  worship,  and  the  idolatry  in  gen 
eral,  are  condemned  by  the  prophets  (Hosea  ii,  5-13  ;  iv,  13  ; 
x,  8,  15  ;  xiii,  2;  Amos  iii,  14;  Micah  i,  7). 

The  throwing  down  the  altars  of  Jehovah  among  the  ten  tribes, 
to  which  Elijah  refers  (i  Kings  xix,  14),  indicates  the  hostility  of 
the  worshipers  of  Baal  to  Jehovah,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  of  the  legality  of  those  altars. 


218  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 

THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH 
AND  ITS  BEARING  ON  THE  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE 
WORK. 

T  F  the  Pentateuch  was  really  written  by  Moses,  we  have  in  that  fact 
-*•  a  strong  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  history  in  which  he  was  the  prin 
cipal  actor,  and  which  embraces  about  three  fourths  of  the  whole. 
But  we  may  reverse  the  argument,  and  affirm,  that  if  we  find  numer 
ous  internal  marks  of  truth,  a  thorough  knowledge  of  Egypt  and  of 
the  topography  of  those  regions  through  which  the  Israelites  jour 
neyed,  and  if  the  history  in  important  particulars  is  confirmed  by 
external  evidence — ancient  monuments,  for  example — then  we  have 
strong  proof  that  the  historian  was  contemporary  with  most  of  the 
events  which  he  relates,  and  was,  in  all  probability,  Moses. 

The  Pentateuch  begins  with  the  history  of  creation,  and  gives  us 
a  cosmogony  distinguished  by  a  sublime  simplicity  dif- 

The  Mosaic  cos-  *  .... 

mogony  coin-  fenng  widely  from  all  the  cosmogonies  ot  the  ancient 
^smSesof  world-  In  the  old  cosmogony  of  India,  Vishnu,  as  Brah- 
beatnen  reiig-  ma,  creates  the  world  in  the  following  order:  i.  The 
creation  of  intellect,  or  Mahat,  which  is  also  called  the 
creation  of  Brahma;  2.  That  of  the  rudimental  principles;  3.  The 
creation  of  the  senses;  4.  Inanimate  bodies;  5.  That  of  animals; 
6.  That  of  divinities  ;  7.  That  of  man  ;  8.  A  creation  that  possesses 
both  the  qualities  of  goodness  and  darkness.  Five  creations  are  sec 
ondary  and  three  are  primary.  But  there  is  a  ninth  that  is  both 
primary  and  secondary.1 

The  demons  were  born  from  the  thigh  of  Brahma.  From  his 
mouth  proceeded  the  gods.  He  formed  birds  from  his  vital  vigour ; 
sheep  from  his  breast  ;  goats  from  his  mouth ;  kine  from  his 
belly  and  sides ;  horses,  elephants,  deer,  camels,  mules,  etc.,  from 
his  feet.  From  the  hairs  of  his  body  sprang  herbs,  roots,  and 
fruits.8 

There  sprang  from  the  mouth  of  Brahma  beings  especially  en 
dowed  with  goodness ;  others  from  his  breast,  pervaded  with  the 
quality  of  foulness;  others  from  his  thighs,  in  whom  foulness  and 
darkness  prevailed;  and  others  from  his  feet,  in  whom  the  quality 

1  Wilson,  Vishnu  Parana,  pp.  36-38.  'Ibid.,  pp.  40,  41. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  219 

of  darkness  predominated.  These  were  the  four  castes,  Brahmans, 
Kshetriyas,  Vaisyas,  and  Sudras.1 

How  far  the  views  of  Plato  fell  below  the  grandeur  of  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony  appears  from  a  passage  in  his  Timaeus.  In  his  system  man 
is  the  primal  creation,  from  which  were  derived  the  fowls  of  heaven 
and  the  beasts  of  the  field.  "  Birds,"  says  he,  "  were  derived  from 
men  who  were  guileless,  indeed,  but  frivolous  and  devoted  to  the 
study  of  meteorology,  believing  in  their  simplicity  that  the  proofs  re 
specting  these  things  were  the  most  certain,  on  account  of  their  be 
ing  objects  of  sight.  On  the  other  hand,  land  animals  and  wild 
boasts  sprang  from  men  who  made  no  use  of  philosophy,  and  who 
did  not  at  all  study  the  nature  of  the  heavens  on  account  of  their  no 
longer  using  the  cycles  in  their  heads,  but  following  the  lower  pas 
sions  as  their  guides.  From  these  pursuits  their  arms  and  heads 
were  drawn  down  toward  the  earth  through  a  natural  affinity,"  etc.9 

In  the  history  of  creation  we  are  not  to  expect  anything  more 
than  an  epitome.  As  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  an  introduction  to  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  almost  every  occurrence  is  treated  with  brevity. 
As  it  is  not  the  object  of  Revelation  to  teach  physical  science  but 
theological  and  moral  truth,  we  should  expect  the  account  of  crea 
tion  to  be  adapted  to  this  purpose,  and  to  be  set  forth  in  such  lan 
guage  as  would  be  intelligible  to  the  ancient  Hebrews.  That  the 
history  of  creation  would  be  adapted  to  the  conceptions  and  limited 
faculties  of  the  people  might  be  inferred  from  God's  general  method 
of  teaching,  in  which  language  anthropopathic  and  anthropomorphic  is 
used  in  describing  divine  actions. 

In  fundamental  principles  there  is  no  compromise  in  the  Bible, 
but  in  matters  of  secondary  importance  there  is  an  accommodation 
in  the  Mosaic  law  to  the  condition  of  the  Israelites.  Respecting 
their  law  of  divorce  our  Saviour  said,  "  Moses  because  of  the  hard 
ness  of  your  hearts,  suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives."  If  the 
law  could  be  modified  to  suit  their  condition,  so  might  the  form  of 
the  history  of  creation. 

The  fundamental  idea  in  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  is,  that 
Jehovah  God  is  the  creator  of  all  things  in  heaven,  earth,  and  under  the 
earth.  Here  there  is  no  room  left  for  the  operations  of  any  other 
god,  and  nature  herself  is  shown  to  be  a  dependent  creature  of  Jeho 
vah  ,  consequently  there  is  no  place  for  idolatry.  Subordinate  to 
this  idea  is  the  division  of  the  work  of  creation  into  six  periods  of 
one  day  each,  on  which  was  founded  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

'Wilson,  Vishnu  Purana,  p.  44. 

4  Timaeus,  91.  I  make  no  reference  to  the  Metamorphoses  of  Ovid,  for  in  his 
time  the  writings  of  Moses  were  known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 


220  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

The  order  of  creation  contained  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
The  Mosaic  or-  agrees  'm  its  general  outline  with  the  present  state  of 
der  of  creation  geological  science.  After  the  creation  of  the  heavens 
with  modern  and  of  the  earth  the  Almighty  created  light.  That  light 
science.  existed  at  the  earliest  period  of  animal  life  is  inferred 

from  the  fact  that  the  trilobites,  belonging  to  the  lower  Silurian  for 
mation,  had  perfect  eyes. 

The  separation  of  the  waters  above  the  firmament  from  those  be 
low  the  firmament  was  the  work  of  the  second  day.  Whatever  view 
be  taken  of  the  expression  "  waters  above  the  firmament,"  it  is  evi 
dent  that  Moses  knew  the  real  source  of  rain.  For  it  is  said, 
"  There  went  up  a  mist  from  the  earth,  and  watered  the  whole  face  of 
the  ground  "  (Gen.  ii,  6).  The  separation  of  land  and  water,  the 
formation  of  continents,  followed  by  the  creation  of  grass,  herbs,  and 
fruit  trees,  the  work  of  the  third  day,  are  parts  of  geological  history. 
"  The  facts  to  be  presented  under  the  Silurian  age,"  says  Dana, 
"  teach  that  the  great,  yet  unmade,  continents,  although  so  small  in 
the  amount  of  dry  land,  were  not  covered  by  the  deep  ocean,  but 
only  by  shallow  oceanic  waters.  They  lay  just  beneath  the  waves, 
already  outlined,  prepared  to  commence  that  series  of  formations — 
the  Silurian,  Devonian,  Carboniferous,  and  others — which  was  re 
quired  to  finish  the  crust  for  its  ultimate  continental  purposes." 
"  The  Azoic  age  in  geology  witnessed,  with  little  doubt,  the  appear 
ance  of  the  first  continents,  and,  probably,  of  the  first  plants."1 

The  creation  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  on  the  fourth  day,  has 
but  little  connexion  with  geology,  and  belongs  rather  to  astronomy. 
It  seems  strange  that  the  sun,  to  us  the  great  source  of  light  and 
heat,  should  not  be  created  till  the  fourth  day,  while  light  itself  was 
created  on  the  first  day.  Now  no  man  of  the  Mosaic  age,  following 
his  own  unaided  reason  or  imagination  only,  would  ever  have  hit 
upon  such  an  arrangement  as  we  have  in  Genesis ;  and  in  the  present 
'state  of  physical  science  it  is  not  so  improbable  as  it  seems  at  first 
sight ;  and  in  the  future  progress  of  science  it  may  be  rendered  in 
the  highest  degree  probable  on  scientific  grounds.8  According  to 
modern  science,  the  sun  is  a  dark  body  surrounded  by  a  luminous, 
gaseous  envelope.  Thus  while  light  ("MK)  as  a  principle  was  cre- 

1  Text  Book  of  Geology,  p.  77. 

9  What  appears  in  one  age  an  absurdity,  may  in  another  age  become  the  strong 
est  proof  of  a  statement  or  doctrine.  Thus  Herodotus  (liber  iv,  42),  in  relating  the 
circumnavigation  of  Africa  from  the  Red  Sea  and  returning  through  the  Pillars  of 
Hercules  to  Egypt  by  order  of  Necho,  says,  "  They  told  me  what  is  not  credible, 
that  while  sailing  around  Africa  they  had  the  sun  on  their  right  hand!'  But  this 
circumstance  is  to  us  a  strong  proof  that  the  voyage  was  made. 


OF   THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  221 

ated  on  the  first  day,  it  was  not  till  the  fourth  that  the  sun,  tne  light- 
holder  l*ti*7)  was  created  or  arranged  in  its  present  form.  Before 
the  creation  of  the  sun  the  earth  seems  to  have  derived  no  heat 
from  any  external  source,  but  its  surface  was  in  all  probability 
warmed  from  the  internal  heat.  And  this  is  supported  by  geology, 
which  shows  us  that  in  the  earlier  period  of  the  earth's  history  no 
climatic  differences  existed.  Previous  to  the  existence  of  the  sun,  it 
cannot  be  said  with  certainty  in  what  way  the  periods  of  day  and 
night  were  divided.  We  would,  however,  regard  the  light  as  located 
in  one  part  of  the  universe,  and  the  same  part  of  the  surface  of  the 
earth  by  its  rotation  brought  alternately  into  light  and  darkness. 

The  work  of  the  fifth  day  was  the  creation  of  the  fishes  of  the  sea 
and  the  fowls  of  heaven,  followed,  on  the  sixth  day,  by  the  creation 
of  beasts,  cattle  and  creeping  things,  ending  in  the  formation  of 
man  in  the  image  of  God.  Now,  in  the  geological  series,  the  crea 
tion  of  fish  preceded  that  of  reptiles  and  mammalia,  and  man  is  the 
last  of  the  series.  Here  the  Mosaic  and  the  geological  records 
agree. 

It  seems  best  to  take  the  word  "  day  "  in  Genesis  i,  ii,  for  an  in 
definite  period  of  time.  In  Job  xv,  32,  and  xxx,  25,  day  (DV)  is  used 
for  the  whole  period  of  life.  In  the  same  way  the  Greeks  use  fy^pa, 
day,  and  we  employ  it  in  the  phrase  "  his  day." 

"  The  Etruscans  relate  that  God  created  the  world  in  six  thousand 
years.  In  the  first  thousand  he  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth ; 
in  the  second,  the  firmament;  in  the  third,  the  sea  and  the  other 
waters  of  the  earth  ;  in  the  fourth,  sun,  moon,  and  stars  ;  in  the  fifth, 
the  animals  belonging  to  air,  water,  and  land  ;  in  the  sixth,  man  alone. 
The  Persian  tradition  also  recognizes  the  six  periods  of  creation."' 
"  The  principal  Babylonian  story  of  the  creation,"  says  Smith,  "  sub 
stantially  agrees,  as  far  as  it  is  preserved,  with  the  biblical  account. 
According  to  it  there  was  a  chaos  of  watery  matter  before  the  crea 
tion,  and  from  this  all  things  were  generated."  Other  "fragments 
refer  to  the  creation  of  mankind,  called  Adam,  as  in  the  Bible. 
Another  "fragment  was  supposed  by  Mr.  Smith  to  relate  to  the 
fall  of  man,  and  to  contain  the  speech  of  the  deity  to  the  newly-cre 
ated  pair.  This,  however,  is  extremely  doubtful.  The  fragment  is 
in  so  broken  a  condition  that  almost  any  thing  can  be  made  out  of  it." 2 

But  it  is  too  early  yet  to  attempt  an  elaborate  reconciliation  of 
the  Mosaic  cosmogony  with  geology — a  science  which  is  not  much 
more  than  half  a  century  old,  and  is  very  imperfectly  developed  by 
reason  of  the  vast  regions  over  which  it  extends.  It  has  not  yet 

1  Dr.  M'Caul,  Mosaic  Record  of  Creation. 

2  George  Smith's  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  by  A.  H.  Sayce,  p.  72. 


222  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

been  surely  determined  relatively  or  absolutely  when  the  various 
orders  of  creation  upon  our  planet  first  appeared.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  how  far  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
creation  was  adapted  to  the  conceptions  of  the  Jews. 

The  recent  origin  of  man  is  clearly  shown  from  the  biblical  his 
tory  ;  and  geology  confirms  it  in  a  most  striking  manner  by  showing 
the  absence  of  human  remains,  and  of  any  indication  of  human  ex 
istence,  except  in  the  latest  geological  formations.  Even  those  im 
plements  found  in  certain  parts  of  Europe  cannot  prove  any  great  an 
tiquity  for  man,  since  we  know  not  what  length  of  time  has  intervened 
between  the  deposition  of  the  strata  in  which  they  are  found  and 
the  present  age.  Nor  do  we  know  what  time  has  elapsed  since  those 
animals  disappeared  with  whose  bones  human  remains  are  found, 
even  if  we  grant  that  these  animals  and  men  were  contemporary. 

A  very  high  antiquity  for  the  human  race  is  inconsistent  with  the 
general  ascertained  facts  of  geology.  It  was  impossible  that  man 
should  be  confined  to  one  small  territory  for  a  long  time,  whether  in 
a  savage  or  civilized  condition ;  for  he  roams  over  the  earth,  and 
eyery-where  leaves  traces  of  his  existence.  It  is  not  possible  that 
man  should  have  existed  in  Europe  thousands  of  years  before  he 
made  his  way  into  Asia.  But  the  human  race,  without  doubt,  had 
its  origin  in  Asia,  and  must  soon  have  settled  Egypt.  Why  then  have 
we  not  traces  of  man's  existence  in  Asia  and  in  Egypt  of  as  early  a 
day  as  is  alleged  in  behalf  of  the  stone  implements  in  certain  parts 
of  Europe  ? 

According  to  Genesis,  the  primitive  seat1  of  mankind  was  in  West 
ern  Asia,  somewhere  near  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  and  from  this 
same  region  the  sons  of  Noah  after  the  deluge  spread  themselves 
over  the  earth.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  Indo- 
Germanic  languages  (Sanscrit,  Zend,  Greek,  Latin,  Gothic.,  etc.)  have 
their  origin  in  the  region  of  Persia.8 

The  unity  of  the  human  race  is  undoubtedly  taught  in  Genesis, 
and  anatomy  and  physiology  furnish  strong  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
this  doctrine. 

That  man  originally  lived  in  a  state  of  innocency  and  happiness, 
The  Mosaic  ac-  from  which  he  fell,  as  taught  in  Genesis,  is  a  wide- 
^Umitiv°ef  con!  spread  tradition.  We  find  it  described  in  the  beautiful 
dition  of  man  poetry  of  Ovid,  *  who  speaks  of  it  as  the  "  Golden 
uSversai  Tra-  Age,"  ^n  which  the  earth  yielded  spontaneously  her 
dition.  fruits  for  the  human  race,  and  men  observed  justice 

1  Sargon  calls  Elam  the  country  of  "  the  four  rivers."     A.  H.  Sayce,  p.  84. 
8  See  Max  Miiller's  Science  of  Language,  234,  et  seq.,  and  Humboldt's  Cosmos, 
vol.  i,  p.  15.  8  Metamorphoses,  liher  i,  8q-H2. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  223 

and  rectitude  of  their  own  accord,  and  were  free  from  fear,  as  there 
was  no  judge  to  inflict  penalties.  This  age,  according  to  the  poet, 
was  followed  by  those  of  silver,  brass,  and  iron.  The  ancient  Greek 
poet,  Hesiod,1  refers  to  the  primeval  condition  of  man,  characteriz 
ing  it  as  a  "  Golden  Age,"  when  men  lived  like  gods,  free  from  care, 
and  died  as  if  overcome  by  sleep,  and  the  earth  yielded  of  her  own 
accord  abundant  fruits.  "  In  the  Zend  Avesta,  Yima,  the  first  Iranic 
king,  lives  in  a  secluded  spot,  where  he  and  his  people  enjoy  unin 
terrupted  happiness.  Neither  sin,  nor  folly,  nor  violence,  nor  pov 
erty,  nor  deformity  has  entrance  into  the  region ;  nor  does  the  evil 
spirit  for  awhile  set  foot  there."  "  In  the  Chinese  books  we  read, 
that  '  During  the  period  of  the  first  heaven,  the  whole  creation  en 
joyed  a  state  of  happiness :  every  thing  was  beautiful ;  every  thing 
was  good  ;  all  beings  were  perfect  in  their  kind;  ...  all  things  grew 
without  labour,  and  universal  fertility  prevailed.'  The  literature  of 
the  Hindus  tells  of  a  *  first  age  of  the  world,  when  justice,  in  the 
form  of  a  bull,  kept  herself  firm  on  her  four  feet ;  virtue  reigned  ; 
no  good  which  mortals  possessed  was  mixed  with  baseness;  and 
man,  free  from  diseases,  saw  all  his  wishes  accomplished,  and  at 
tained  an  age  of  four  hundred  years.'  In  the  earliest  of  the  Persian 
books  the  Fall  would  seem  to  be  gradual;  but  in  the  later  writings, 
which  are  of  an  uncertain  date,  a  narrative  appears  which  is  most 
strikingly  in  accordance  with  that  of  Genesis."5 

The  longevity  of  the  antediluvians  has  been  regarded  by  some  as 
incredible.  But  the  numbers  bear  no  indications  of  The  lon 
myth.  The  age  of  the  antediluvians  is  given,  the  time  of  the  antedi. 
when  the  eldest  sons  were  born,  and  when  they  died; 
and  these  years  are  not  put  in  round  numbers  as  we  would  expect 
in  a  myth.  It  is  impossible  for  physiologists  to  disprove  the  possi 
bility  of  the  antediluvians  having  reached  the  ages  attributed  to 
them.  There  is  no  way  of  judging,  &  priori,  how  long  any  animal 
may  live  ;  and  in  the  early  period  of  man's  existence  various  causes, 
as  climate  and  food,  may  have  favoured  longevity.  But  why  may 
not  the  Almighty  have  granted  to  man  a  great  age  at  first  for 
the  rapid  increase  of  the  race,  and  have  shortened  it  afterward  ? 
That  men  do  not  reach  an  age  of  nine  hundred  years  now  is  no 
proof  that  they  never  did.  Geology  clearly  shows  the  vast  changes 
that  the  physical  and  the  animal  world  have  passed  through  in  their 
history.  "  The  great  Haller,  when  led  to  speak  on  the  subject,  de 
clared  the  problem  one  which  could  not  be  solved,  on  account  of  the 
absence  of  sufficient  data;  while  Buffon  accepted  the  scriptural  ac- 

1  Works  and  Days,  lines  109-119. 

8  Hist.  Illus.  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  Rawlinson  and  Hackett,  pp.  9-11. 


224  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

count,  and  thought  he  could  see  physical  reasons  why  life  should  in 
the  early  ages  have  been  so  greatly  extended."1  Lord  Bolingbroke, 
in  the  last  century,  although  he  treated  Moses  and  his  history  with 
great  contempt,  yet  allowed  "  that  the  lives  of  men  in  the  first  ages 
of  the  world  were  probably  much  longer  than  ours."3  Josephus,  in 
his  Antiquities,  in  speaking  of  the  great  length  of  the  lives  of  the  an 
tediluvians,  remarks  :  "  All  those  who  have  written  works  on  antiq 
uities,  both  the  Greeks  and  the  Barbarians,  bear  witness  to  my 
statements.  For  Manetho,  who  wrote  an  account  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  Berosus,  who  gave  an  account  of  the  Chaldean  affairs,  and  Mo- 
chus,  and  Hestiseus,  and  the  Egyptian  Hieronymus,  who  wrote  an 
account  of  the  Phoenicians,  agree  with  my  statements.  Hesiod,  and 
Hecataeus,  and  Hellanicus,  and  Acousilaus,  and  Ephorus,  and  Nic- 
olaus,  relate  that  the  ancients  lived  a  thousand  years"*  In  the  Hin 
du  accounts  of  the  early  ages,  men  in  the  first  period  were  free  from 
disease,  and  reached  four  hundred  years. 

What  is  most  remarkable  in  the  history  of  the  antediluvian  world 
is  its  freedom  from  the  mythical  history  of  gods  and  demi-gods  that 
pervades  the  early  records  of  other  nations.  In  the  Egyptian  his 
tory,  the  reign  of  the  gods  and  demi-gods  extends  over  a  period  of 
more  than  seventeen  thousand  years.4 

According  to  Genesis  vii,  viii,  there  was  a  universal  deluge,  which 
The  tradition  swept  off  all  men  and  every  living  creature  upon  the 

ofadeiugeuni-  face  of  the  earth  and  in  the  heavens  except  Noah  and 
versal  among  ... 

the  great  races  his  family,  and  the  living  creatures  that  were  with  him 
of  mankind.  jn  tke  arfct  if  thjs  account  were  nothing  more  than  a 
tradition,  it  must  be  of  great  value.  Its  simplicity  stamps  it  with 
the  seal  of  truth.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  an  event  of  this  kind 
would  not  be  forgotten  by  the  descendants  of  Noah.  And  we  ac 
cordingly  find  among  nearly  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  a  tradition 
of  a  great  deluge. 

After  giving  the  traditions  of  various  nations  respecting  a  deluge, 
Professor  Rawlinson  remarks  :  "  To  conclude,  therefore,  that  the 
deluge,  in  respect  of  mankind,  was  partial,  because  some  of  the 
great  divisions  of  the  human  family  had  no  tradition  on  the  subject, 
is  to  draw  a  conclusion  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  evidence.  The  evi 
dence  shows  a  consentient  belief — a  belief  that  has  all  the  appear 
ance  of  being  original  and  not  derived — among  members  of  ALL  the 
great  races  into  which  ethnologists  have  divided  mankind." £l  Fran 
cois  Lenormant  concludes  his  investigations  on  the  deluge  with 

1  Aids  to  Faith,  Essay  vi,  sec.  v. 

2  Works,  vol.  iii,  p.  244,  in  Leland's  View  of  Deist.  Writers,  ii,  365.      3  Lib.  i,  3,  9. 
4Osburn's  Mon.  Hist.  Egypt,  p.  199.  6  Illust.  of  Old  Test.,  p.  21,  22. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  225 

the  remark  that  he  is  in  "a  position  to  affirm  that  the  account  of 
the  deluge  is  a  universal  tradition  in  all  branches  of  the  human 
family,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  black  race.  No  religious  or 
cosmogonic  myth  possesses  this  character  of  universality.  It  must 
necessarily  be  the  reminiscence  of  an  actual  and  terrible  event  which 
made  so  powerful  an  impression  upon  the  imaginations  of  the  first 
parents  of  our  species  that  their  descendants  could  never  forget  it." l 

A  very  ancient  and  remarkable  account  of  a  deluge  has  been 
found  on  tablets  in  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  belonging  to  the  reign  of 
Assurbanipal,  B.  C.  670.  The  inscriptions  on  these  tablets  are  sup 
posed  to  be  copies  of  very  ancient  records.  In  this  description  Sur- 
ippakite  is  directed  by  the  Assyrian  divinity  to  build  a  ship  for  him 
self,  as  he  intends  to  destroy  the  sinner  and  life,  and  to  preserve 
in  it  "the  seed  of  life,  all  of  it,  in  the  midst  of  the  ship."  He  is 
also  instructed  of  what  dimensions  to  build  it.  It  was  covered  with 
out  and  within  with  bitumen.  Surippakite  is  ordered  to  put  into 
this  ship  his  grain,  furniture,  goods,  wealth,  woman  servants,  female 
slaves,  and  young  men.  At  the  same  time  it  is  declared  that  the 
beasts  of  the  field  shall  be  sent  to  him  to  be  put  into  the  ship.  The 
rain  pours  down  from  heaven  for  seven  days.  On  the  very  first  day 
the  ship  is  carried  to  Mount  Nizir,  where  it  rests  seven  days.  First 
a  dove  is  sent  forth  from  the  ship,  and,  not  finding  any  resting-place, 
returns.  Next,  a  swallow  is  sent,  which  also  returns.  Afterwards 
there  was  sent  forth  a  raven,  which  did  not  return.  After  the  deluge 
ceased  Surippakite  built  an  altar  on  the  peak  of  the  mountain,  and 
offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods.2 

"  The  inscription,"  says  Mr.  Smith,  "  gives  seven  days  for  the  flood, 
and  seven  days  for  the  resting  of  the  ark  on  the  mountain  ;  while  the 
Bible  gives  the  commencement  of  the  flood  on  the  seventeenth  day 
of  the  second  month,  and  its  termination  on  the  twenty-seventh  day 
of  the  second  month  in  the  following  year,  making  a  total  duration 
of  one  year  and  ten  days.  .  .  .  There  is,  again,  a  difference  as  to  the 
mountain  on  which  the  ark  rested ;  Nizir,  the  place  mentioned  in 
the  cuneiform  text,  being  east  of  Assyria,  probably  between  latitudes 
35°  and  36°,  while  Ararat,  the  mountain  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  was 
north  of  Assyria,  near  Lake  Van. 

u  In  the  account  of  sending  forth  the  birds,  there  is  a  difference 
in  detail  between  the  Bible  and  the  inscriptions  which  cannot 
be  explained  away;  this  and  other  similar  differences  will  serve  to 
show  that  neither  of  the  two  documents  is  copied  directly  from  the 

1  The  Beginnings  of  History,  pp.  486,  487. 

2  We  have  abridged  this  statement  from  The  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  by 
George  Smith.     Scribner,  Armstrong,  &  Co.,  1876. 

VOL.  L— 15 


226  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

other."1     The  simplicity  of  the  biblical  account,  and  the  dates  that 
are  given,  stamp  it  as  the  original. 

Osburn  thinks  he  sees  in  the  Egyptian  nou  or  nh,  which  signifies 
"  the  primordial  water,"  "  the  abyss,"  a  reference  to  Noah,  the  name 
of  the  divine  impersonation  of  the  annual  overflow  in  the  Egyptian 
mythology  being  Nh  or  Nuh,  the  Hebrew  m'J  or  ru  Noah.2 

After  the  description  of  the  flood,  we  have  an  account  of  the 
The  genealogy  peopling  of  the  earth  by  the  sons  of  Noah  (Genesis  x). 
of  the  sons  of  This  genealogical  table  bears  the  stamp  of  truth,  and 
ant  with  mod-  has  been  remarkably  confirmed  by  modern  researches, 
eraethnoiogy.  "Setting  aside  the  cases  where  the  ethnic  names  em 
ployed  are  of  doubtful  application,  it  cannot  reasonably  be  ques 
tioned  that  the  author  has,  in  his  account  of  the  sons  of  Japhet,  clas 
sified  together  the  Cymry  or  Celts  (Gomer),  the  Medes  (Madai),  and 
the  lonians  or  Greeks  (Javan),  thereby  anticipating  what  has  become 
known  in  modern  times  as  '  the  Indo-European  theory,'  or  the  essen 
tial  unity  of  the  Aryan  (Asiatic)  race  with  the  principal  races  of  Eu 
rope,  indicated  by  the  Celts  and  the  lonians.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted 
that  he  has  thrown  together  under  the  one  head  of  '  children  of 
Shem,'  the  Assyrians  (Asshur),  the  Syrians  (Aram),  the  Hebrews 
(Eber),and  the  Joktanian  Arabs  (Joktan),  four  of  the  principal  races 
which  modern  ethnology  recognises  under  the  heading  of  'Semitic.' 
Again,  under  the  heading  of  *  sons  of  Ham,'  the  author  has  arranged 
'  Gush,'  i.  e.,  the  Ethiopians;  Mizraim,  the  people  of  Egypt;  Sheba 
and  Dedan,  or  certain  of  the  Southern  Arabs  ;  and  4  Nimrod,'  or  the 
ancient  people  of  Babylon — four  races  between  which  the  latest  lin 
guistic  researches  have  established  a  close  affinity.  Beyond  a  ques 
tion,  the  tendency  of  modern  ethnological  inquiry  has  been  to  establish 
the  accuracy  of  the  document  called  in  Genesis  the  Toldoth  Beni 
Noah,  or  genealogy  of  the  sons  of  Noah  (chap,  x),  and  to  create  a  feel 
ing  among  scientific  ethnologists  that  it  is  a  record  of  the  very  highest 
value ;  one  which,  if  it  can  be  rightly  interpreted,  may  be  thoroughly 
trusted,  and  which  is,  as  one  of  them  has  said,  '  the  most  authentic 
record  that  we  possess  for  the  affiliation  of  nations.'  " 

In  Genesis  x,  9,  10,  mention  is  made  of  Nimrod,  a  mighty  hunter 
The   gtory  of   Def°re  the  Lord;  and  the  beginning  of  his  kingdom  was 

Nimrod  mus-  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh,  in  the  land 
trated  on  an-       _  _,.  .  .,  _.,       ..  ....  .,-,  //     •>  •    , 

cient     monu-   of  Shmar.        The  four  cities,    says  Bonomi,     which  are 

ments.  recorded  in  Scripture  to  have  been  founded  by  Nimrod, 

Babel,  Erec.h,  Accad,  and  Calneh,  were  all  in  the  land  of  Shinar,  the 

1  Smith's  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  pp.  288,  289. 

*  Monumental  History  of  Egypt,  p.  240. 

*  Rawlinson  and  Hackett.  Hist.  III.  of  Old  Testament,  pp.  25,  26. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  227 

southern  part  of  Mesopotamia."1  Bonomi  gives  a  cut  of  a  gigantic 
figure  of  a  man  strangling  a  young  lion,  taken  from  the  ruins  of  an 
cient  Nineveh.  He  believes  this  to  be  a  representation  of  the  mighty 
hunter  Nimrod.  According  to  Gen.  x,  8  Nimrod  was  the  son  of 
Cush.  "  Recent  researches  in  Mesopotamia,"  says  Rawlinson,  "  have 
revealed  to  us  as  the  earliest  seat  of  power  and  civilization  in  West 
ern  Asia,  a  Cushite  kingdom,  the  site  of  which  is  Lower  Babylonia;  a 
main  characteristic  of  which  is  its  possession  of  large  cities,  and 
which  even  seems  in  an  especial  way  to  affect,  in  its  political  ar 
rangements,  the  number  four.  Babel,  Accad,  and  Erech  (or  Huruk), 
are  names  which  occur  in  the  early  geographic  nomenclature  of  this 
monarchy.  Nimrod  is  a  personage  in  its  mythology.  The  records 
discovered  do  not,  probably,  mount  up  within  some  centuries  of  the 
foundation  of  the  kingdom ;  but  they  present  us  with  a  picture  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  scriptural  narrative — a  picture  of  a  state 
such  as  that  set  up  by  Nimrod  would  be  likely  to  have  become  two 
or  three  centuries  after  its  foundation."5 

In  Gen.  x,  n,  it  is  said  that  "  out  of  that  land  [Nimrod's  kingdom] 
went  forth  Asshur  and  builded  Nineveh,"  etc.3  "The  recovered 
monuments  show  that  the  Mosaical  account  is,  in  all  respects,  true. 
The  early  Babylonians  are  proved  to  have  been  of  an  entirely  dis 
tinct  race  from  the  Assyrians,  whose  language  is  Semitic,  while  that 
of  their  southern  neighbours  is  Cushite.  A  Babylonian  kingdom  is 
found  to  have  flourished  before  there  was  any  independent  Assyria, 
or  any  such  city  as  Nineveh."4 

In  the  first  part  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Genesis  we  have  an  ac 
count  of  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel  or  Babylon.  There  is  in 
Abydenus,  who  wrote  concerning  Assyrian  affairs,  a  passage  that  re 
fers  to  the  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  and  the  confusion  of  the 
language  of  the  builders:  "There  are  some  who  say  that  the  first 
men,  having  sprung  from  the  earth,  and  being  puffed  up  on  account 
of  their  strength  and  size,  and  presuming  to  be  superior  to  the  gods, 
raised  a  lofty  tower  where  Babylon  now  stands;  and  when  it  was 
approaching  'heaven  the  winds  came  to  the  assistance  of  trie  gods, 
and  threw  down  the  tower  about  the  builders.  The  ruins  of  this 
tower  are  called  Babylon.  Men  who  had  hitherto  been  of  one 
tongue  received  from  the  gods  many  languages."* 

'Nineveh  and  its  Palaces,  p.  45. 

"Historical  Illustrations  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  30,  31. 

3  This  is  preferable  to  "  he  went  forth  to  Assyria,"  as  H  local  is  not  added  to  "llSfal* 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  LXX,  which  has  Aaaovp,  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  and 
the  Peshito-Syriac,  which  have  the  "Assyrian." 

4 His.  Illus.,  p.  33.  "In  Eusebius'  Praepar.  Evan.,  ix,  14. 


228  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

The  story  of  the  war  of  the  giants  against  heaven,  found  in  the 
Greek  and  Roman  mythology,  probably  grew  out  of  the  building 
of  the  tower  of  Babel.  A  probable  proof  of  the  confusion  of  tongues 
is  furnished  "  in  the  character  of  the  language  which  appears  on  the 
earliest  monuments  of  the  country — monuments  which  reach  back 
to  a  time  probably  as  remote  as  B.  C.  2300,  and  almost  certainly 
anterior  to  the  date  of  Abraham.  This  monumental  language  is  es 
pecially  remarkable  for  its  mixed  character.  It  is  Turanian  in  its 
structure,  Cushite  or  Ethiopian  in  the  bulk  of  its  vocabulary,  while, 
at  the  same  time,  it  appears  to  contain  both  Semitic  and  Aryan 
elements."1 

Wlxen  Abraham  visited  Egypt  (Gen.  xii,  10-20)  he  found  there  a 
king2  (Pharaoh)  and  princes.  He  was  presented  with  sheep,  oxen, 
asses,  and  camels,  in  addition  to  servants.  In  this  list  we  miss 
horses,  which  seem  to  have  been  introduced  into  Egypt  a  short  time 
before  the  Mosaic  age  (according  to  Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  386).  But  in 
the  age  of  Solomon  horses  were  abundant  in  Egypt.  How  natural 
it  would  have  been  for  a  writer  subsequent  to  Moses  to  put  horses 
among  the  gifts  made  to  Abraham  in  Egypt.  The  ass  is  the  most 
common  animal  in  Egypt  at  the  present  day,  and  no  doubt  was 
known  there  from  the  most  ancient  times ;  and  the  same  is  true  of 
oxen.  Sheep  are  represented  in  a  tomb  below  the  pyramids,  dating 
upward  of  four  thousand  years  ago.8  The  camel  also  appears  among 
the  gifts  to  Abraham.  "  It  is  remarkable,"  says  Wilkinson,  "  that  the 
camel,  though  known  in  Egypt  as  early  at  least  as  the  time  of  Abra 
ham,  has  never  been  met  with,  even  in  the  latest  paintings  or  hiero 
glyphics.  Yet  this  does  not  prove  it  was  even  rare  in  the  country ; 
since  the  same  would  apply  to  fowls  and  pigeons,  of  which  no  in 
stance  occurs  on  the  monuments  among  the  stock  of  the  farm 
yard."4  Camels  are  at  present 5  employed  in  Egypt,  and  it  is  highly 
probable  that  they  were  used  from  the  earliest  times  as  the  great 
means  of  commerce  between  Egypt  and  other  countries  separated 
from  it  by  deserts. 

'Hist.  Old  Testament  Illus.,  p.  28. 

'Phouro  (Coptic),  the  king,  the  name  given  to  the  Egyptian  monarchs  from  the 
earliest  times.  8  See  Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  166 

4  Manners  and  Customs,  etc.,  vol.  i,  234. 

"When  in  Egypt,  in  December,  1869,  the  author  saw,  a  short  distance  north 
of  Cairo,  a  considerable  number  of  camels  coming  from  that  city,  and  bound  appar 
ently  for  Suez. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  229 


CHAPTER   XXVII. 

FARTHER   CONSIDERATION    OF    THE    CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 
HISTORY    CONTAINED    IN    THE    PENTATEUCH. 


history  of  the  patriarchs,  as  related  in  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
is  marked  by  simplicity,  and  by  no  means  shows  the  conditions 
and  relations  of  a  subsequent  age  extended  to  the  past.  In  the  case 
of  Abraham  we  have  a  striking  instance  of  a  custom  different  from  the 
Mosaic  enactment;  for  Sarah,  his  wife,  was  his  half-sister  (Gen.  xx,  12), 
but  such  a  union  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  Moses  (Lev.  xviii,  9). 
No  one  of  the  Hebrews,  in  the  Mosaic  age  or  subsequently,  in  mak 
ing  up  a  story,  would  have  represented  their  great  progenitor  as  liv 
ing  in  a  relation  condemned  by  Moses.  Jacob  had  two  sisters  for 
wives  at  the  same  time,  which  is  forbidden  in  Lev.  xviii,  18. 

In  connexion  with  the  patriarchal  history,  the  question  arises, 
Does  the  biblical  chronology  allow  a  sufficient  interval  The  time  lbe- 
of  time  to  elapse  between  the  deluge  and  the  building  tween  the  dei- 
of  thfe  great  pyramid  for  the  settlement,  the  civilization,  building  of  the 
and  the  attainment  of  a  high  state  of  art  at  the  latter  great  pyramid. 
period  ?  The  interval  between  the  deluge  and  the  birth  of  Abraham 
varies  with  the  text  from  which  the  chronology  is  calculated.  If 
taken  from  the  Jewish  Pentateuch,  it  is  292  years;  if  from  the  Sa 
maritan,  it  is  942  years  ;  but  if  from  the  Septuagint,  it  is  1,172  years. 
Now,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  numbers  taken  from  the  Jewish 
Pentateuch  are  too  small.  The  great  pyramid  was  built  about  2,450 
years  before  Christ,  about  100  years  before  the  deluge,  according  to 
the  chronology  of  Usher.  But  if  we  suppose  the  sojourn  in  Egypt 
to  have  been  430  years  instead  of  215,  then  the  great  pyramid  must 
have  been  built  only  a  hundred  years  after  the  deluge,  which  is  ex 
ceedingly  improbable.  Now,  if  we  take  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
as  authority,  and  allow  but  215  years  for  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites 
in  Egypt,  we  shall  have  the  deluge  B.  C.  2936  ;  or  if  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt  was  430  years,1  then  the  deluge  was  B.  C.  3151.  The  Sep 
tuagint  gives  us  still  more  time,  making  the  deluge  either  B.  C.  3168, 
or  B.  C.  3383.* 

1  We  decidedly  prefer  430  years  as  the  period  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt. 

'Both  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Septuagint  say  the  sojourn  in  Egypt 
and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  was  430  years  (Exod.  xii,  40),  contrary  to  the  Jewish 
Pentateuch. 


230  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

We  confess  we  have  but  little  confidence  in  any  system  of  chro 
nology  so  ancient  as  the  age  of  Abraham.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
several  generations  may  have  been  omitted  :  e.  g.t  we  find  the  name 
of  Cainan  between  Arphaxad  and  Salah  in  the  Septuagint,  which  is 
wanting  in  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  but  is  found  in 
Luke's  genealogy  of  Christ.  There  are  some  striking  instances  of  the 
omission  of  generations  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles.  Matthew,  in  the 
genealogy  of  our  Lord,  has  done  the  same.  In  the  next  place,  there  is 
great  liability  to  corruption  in  the  transmission  of  numbers.  Menes 
was  the  first  king  of  Egypt ;  but  his  age  is  very  uncertain.  Ac 
cording  to  Josephus  he  reigned  1,300  years  before  Solomon.  ,  Wil 
kinson  is  disposed  to  place  Menes  about  2700  B.  C.  Gliddon  and 
others  adopt  about  the  same  date.  But  twenty-six '  different  dates 
have  been  assigned  to  the  age  of  Menes,  ranging  from  B.  C.  6467  to 
B.  C.  2182.  We  may  assume  B.  C.  2700  as  his  most  probable  age; 
and  this  date  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  chronology  of  either  the 
Samaritan  or  the  Septuagint  text. 

In  Genesis  xiv  there  is  an  account  of  the  rebellion  of  the  kings  of 
some  conflr-  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah,  Zeboiim,  and  Bela,  against 
mationsof  tne  Chedorlaomer,  king  of  Elam,  and  his  three  vassal  kings, 
ktagsTnnBfaby!  in  which  the  former  were  completely  defeated,  and  Lot 
Ionian  monu-  was  led  away  among  the  captives,  but  was  rescued  by 
Abraham,  who,  with  his  confederate  Amorites,  •  com 
pletely  routed  the  victorious  kings.  Here  the  question  arises,  Do 
the  recently  discovered  and  deciphered  monuments  of  Babylon  give 
any  confirmation  to  this  history  ?  The  answer  must  be  in  the  affirm 
ative.  For  while  profane  history  contains  no  account  of  the  events 
here  related,  yet  there  are  certain  facts  that  confirm  the  history, 
though  indirectly.  "  The  change  in  the  position  of  Babylon,  the 
rise  of  the  Elamites  to  power  and  pre-eminence,  and  the  occurrence 
about  this  time  of  Elamitic  expeditions  into  Palestine  or  the  ad 
jacent  districts,  are  witnessed  to  by  documents  recently  disinterred 
from  the  mounds  of  Mesopotamia.  The  name,  too,  of  the  Elamite 
king,  though  not  yet  actually  found  on  any  monument,  is  composed 
of  elements  both  of  which  occur  in  Elamite  documents  separately, 
and  is  of  a  type  exactly  similar  to  other  Elamitic  names  of  the 
period.  To  give  the  evidence  more  fully,  it  is  stated  in  an  insc  rip- 
tion  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  the  son  of  Esar-haddon,  that  1,635  years  be 
fore  his  own  capture  of  Susa,  or  about  B.  C.  2286,  Kudur-NaVhunta, 
then  king  of  Elam,  led  an  expedition  into  Babylon,  took  the  towns, 
plundered  the  temples,  and  carried  off  the  images  of  the  gods  to 
his  own  capital,  where  they  remained  to  the  time  of  the  Assyrian 

'Wuttke,  p.  488. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  231 

conquest.  From  Babylonian  documents  of  a  date  not  much  later 
(B.  C.  2200-2100),  it  appears  that  an  Elamitic  dynasty  had  by  that 
time  been  established  in  Babylonia  itself,  and  that  a  king  called 
Kudur-Mabuk,  an  Elamite  prince,  who  held  his  court  at  Ur,  in 
Lower  Chaldea,  carried  his  arms  so  far  to  the  westward  that  he 
took  the  title  of  *  Ravager  of  the  West,'  or  '  Ravager  of  Syria,'  a 
title  which  is  found  inscribed  upon  his  bricks.  The  element  Kudur, 
which  commences  the  name  of  this  prince,  and  also  that  of  Kudur- 
Nakhunta,  is  identical  with  the  Hebrew  Chedor ;  while  Lagamer  is 
elsewhere  found  as  an  Elamitic  god,  which  is  the  case  also  with 
Mabuk  and  Nakhunta.  Thus  Chedorlaomer  (Kudur-Lagamer)  is  a 
name  of  exactly  the  same  type  with  Kudur-Nakhunta  and  Kudur- 
Mabuk.  Its  character  is  thoroughly  Elamitic,  and  it  is  appropri 
ate  to  the  time  at  which  the  writer  of  Genesis  places  the  monarch 
bearing  it."  What  a  strong  proof  we  here  have  of  the  reality 
of  the  history  in  which  Abraham  occupies  so  conspicuous  a  place ! 
Such  a  history  as  this  must  have  been  written  down  either  in  the 
patriarchal  age  originally,  or  by  some  one  in  the  position  of  Moses. 

The  cities  of  the  plain,  Sodorn,  Gomorrah,  etc.,  must  have  stood  at 
the  upper  end  of  the  Dead  Sea;  and  Dr.  Tristram a  has  recently  discov 
ered  the  site  of  the  ancient  Zoar,  in  the  ruins  called  Zi'ara,  eight  miles 
east  of  the  north-east  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on  the  mountain  side. 

In  the  supplication  which  Abraham  makes  to  God  in  behalf  of 
Sodom,  Professor  Blunt8  finds  a  remarkable  undesigned  coincidence 
in  the  fact  that  Lot,  who  was  the  nephew  of  Abraham,  dwelt  in 
Sodom,  while  he  makes  no  petition  for  the  other  cities  of  the  plain, 
in  which  he  did  not  feel  the  same  deep  interest. 

In  the  blessing  pronounced  upon  Esau  it  is  said:  "Behold,  thy 
dwelling  shall  be  the  fatness  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  dew  of  heaven 
from  above  "  (Gen.  xxvii,  39).  Professor  Palmer,  who  has  recently 
explored  Edom,  remarks  on  it :  "  The  country  is  extremely  fertile, 
and  presents  a  favourable  contrast  to  the  sterile  region  on  the  oppo 
site  side  of  the  'Arabah.  Goodly  streams  flow  through  the  valleys, 
which  are  filled  with  trees  and  flowers ;  while  on  the  uplands  to  the 
east  rich  pasture-lands  and  corn-fields  may  every- where  be  seen."4 

The  history  of  Joseph  in  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxix-1)  displays  a  most 
accurate  knowledge  6  of  Egyptian  affairs,  and  must  have  been  writ 
ten  by  Moses,  or  by  some  one  in  Egypt  before  the  time  of  Moses. 

1  Rawlinson,  Hist.  Illus.  Old  Testament,  pp.  39,  40. 

lLand  of  Moab,  pp.  341,  343.  •  Scriptural  Coincidences,  p.  31. 

4  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  362. 

s  Bleek  acknowledges  the  intimate  acquaintance  with  Egyptian  affairs  here  shown, 
Einleitung,  p.  265. 


232  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   STUDY 

It  is  stated  (Genesis  xxxix,  i)  that  Potiphar,  captain  of  Pharaoh's 
The  story   of   guard,  bought  Joseph  from  the  Ishmaelites.    In  the  time 

Joseph    exact   of  Joseph  it  is  well  known  that  the  king  of  Egypt  had 
in   its  picture          J .  •        ,  •       * 

of     Egyptian   soldiers  and  officers.     Slavery  existed  in  that  country  at 
customs.  a  very  early  period.     "  The  traffic  in  slaves,"  says  Wil 

kinson,  "  was  tolerated  by  the  Egyptians."     Potiphar,  the  name  of 
Pharaoh's  officer,  is  a  Coptic  word,  meaning  belonging  to  the  sun. 

The  narrative  of  the  attempt  made  by  Potiphar 's  wife  on  the  chas 
tity  of  Joseph  shows  that  women  were  not  excluded  from  the  society 
of  men,  as  was  the  custom  in  some  ancient  countries.  And  this  is 
confirmed  by  independent  testimony.  "  Men  and  women  either  sat 
together,  or  separately,  in  a  different  part  of  the  room."1 

Mention  is  made  of  the  king's  butler  (cup-bearer),  of  the  vine, 
and  of  the  pressing  of  grapes  into  Pharaoh's  cup  (chap,  xl,  i,  9-11). 
"  Some  have  pretended  to  doubt,"  says  Wilkinson,  "  that  the  vine 
was  commonly  cultivated,  or  even  grown,  in  Egypt ;  but  the  frequent 
notice  of  it  and  of  Egyptian  wine  in  the  sculptures,  and  the  author 
ity  of  ancient  writers,  sufficiently  answer  those  objections."3 

"  And  the  birds  did  eat  them  (meats)  out  of  the  basket  upon  my 
head"  (chap,  xl,  17).  Here  we  have  a  reference  to  the  Egyptian 
custom  of  carrying  baskets  on  the  head.  With  this  compare  Herod 
otus'8  remark  respecting  the  Egyptians:  "Men  carry  loads  on 
their  heads,  women  on  their  shoulders."  Wilkinson4  gives  a  cut 
representing  this  usage  of  carrying  bread  in  a  vessel  on  the  head. 

In  Pharaoh's  dream  seven  fat  cows  come  up  from  the  Nile  and 
feed  in  a  meadow ;  after  which  seven  other  cows  that  are  lean  come 
up  also  from  the  Nile,  and  devour  the  fat  ones  (chap,  xli,  1-4).  In 
the  Egyptian  mythology  the  cow  was  the  symbol  of  the  land  of 
Egypt.  Isis  "was  the  goddess  of  the  earth,  which  the  Egyptians 
called  their  mother."  According  to  Herodotus,  ii,  41,  "the  image 
of  Isis  was  the  form  of  a  woman  with  the  horns  of  a  cow."  The 
cows,  in  the  dream  of  Pharaoh,  come  up  from  the  Nile,  the  source 
of  the  fertility  of  Egypt.  The  figure  is  purely  Egyptian.  The  cows 
fed  in  a  meadow,  or,  rather,  in  marsh-grass  'inx,  a  Coptic  word.  The 
stalks  mentioned  in  the  second  dream  had  seven  ears.  This  6  was 
one  of  the  varieties  of  wheat  in  ancient  Egypt.  To  interpret  his 
dream  Pharaoh  called  in  the  sacred  scribes  and  wise  men,  classes  of 
priests ;  for  the  latter  possessed  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians. 

When  Joseph  was  called  from  his  dungeon  by  Pharaoh  it  is  stated 
that  he  shaved  himself  before  appearing  before  Pharaoh.  This  was 
the  custom  of  the  Egyptians.  "  Though  foreigners  who  were  brought 

1  Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  144.  3Ibid.,  vol.  i,  45.  8Lib.  ii,  35. 

*  Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  176.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  39. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  280 

to  Egypt  as  slaves  had  beards  on  their  arrival  in  the  country,  we  find 
that  so  soon  as  they  were  employed  in  the  service  of  (his  civilized 
people  they  were  obliged  to  conform  to  the  cleanly  habits  of  their 
masters ;  their  beard  and  heads  were  shaved.1  In  the  honours  be 
stowed  upon  Joseph  by  Pharaoh  mention  is  made  of  the  king's  sig 
net-ring,  a  chain  of  gold  for  the  neck,  and  garments  of  fine  linen  (or, 
rather,  of  cotton).  The  articles  here  enumerated  are  known  to 
have  been  in  use  in  Egypt  long  before  the  time  of  Joseph.3 

The  name  of  the  daughter  of  Potipherah,  whom  Pharaoh  gave  to 
Joseph  for  wife,  was  Asenath,  which  means  "  she  is  of  Neith,  i.  e.,  be 
longs  to  Neith,  the  Minerva  of  the  Egyptians  "  (Gesenius).  Pharaoh 
gave  Joseph  the  name  Zophnath-paaneah,  which  is  Egyptian,  mean 
ing  the  salvation  or  saviour  of  the  age,  or  the  supporter  or  deliverer  of 
the  age  (Gesenius.)  How  could  a  Hebrew  forger  of  a  later  age  make 
up  all  these  Egyptian  names  ? 

The  wife  of  Joseph  was  the  daughter  of  the  priest  of  On  3  (or  He- 
liopolis),  the  priests  of  which  were  the  most  learned  of  the  Egyp 
tians.  The  king  thus  bestowed  upon  Joseph  the  highest  honour  in 
this  matrimonial  alliance. 

In  Genesis  xlvi,  34,  it  is  said  that  "every  shepherd  is  an  abomina 
tion  unto  the  Egyptians."  The  ground  of  this  feeling  was  the  fact, 
that  they  had  been  in  subjection  to  the  shepherd  kings.  "  This  do 
minion  of  the  shepherd  kings  lasted  upwards  of  half  a  century.  At 
length,  about  1530  B.  C.,  Amosis,  the  leader  of  the  eighteenth  dy 
nasty,  .  .  .  drove  the  shepherds  out  of  the  country."4  Another  rea 
son,  however,  may  have  been  that  shepherds  killed  and  ate  cows, 
which  were  held  sacred  by  the  Egyptians.  It  has  been  thought  very 
improbable  that  Egypt  should  have  been  afflicted  with  such  a  famine 
as  is  recorded  in  the  history  of  Joseph.  But  as  the  fertility  of  Egypt 
depends  on  the  overflowing  of  the  Nile,  which  is  caused  by  the  trop 
ical  rains  in  the  Abyssinian  mountains,  any  large  decrease  in  the 
quantity  of  water  would  produce  a  famine.  Hengstenberg  6  gives 
several  instances  of  terrible  famines  in  Egypt  since  the  time  of  Mo 
hammed,  from  several  writers.  Macrizi  wrote  a  whole  book  on  the 
famines  of  Egypt. 

In  Gen.  xlvii,  22,  it  is  said,  "Only  the  land  of  the  priests  (D'jrl3n, 
rightly  rendered  priests]  bought  he  [Joseph]  not  [for  Pharaoh];  for 
the  priests  had  a  portion  assigned  them  of  Pharaoh,  and  did  eat  their 
portion  which  Pharaoh  gave  them  :  wherefore  they  sold  not  theii 

'Wilkinson,  Manners,  etc.,  vol.  ii,  p.  327.          albid.,  etc. 
8  On,  or  Heliopolis,  existed  as  early  as  B.  C.  2000. 
4  Wilkinson,  Manners,  etc.,  vol;  i,  307,  308. 
6 Die  Biicher  Moses  und  Egypten,  33-35. 


234  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   STUDY 

lands."  The  priests  of  Egypt  differed  from  those  of  the  Hebrews  in 
respect  to  possessions  and  privileges.  "  The  priests,"  says  Wilkin 
son,1  "enjoyed  great  privileges.  They  were  exempt  from  taxes;  they 
consumed  no  part  of  their  own  income  in  any  of  their  necessary  ex 
penses;  and  they  had  one  of  the  three  portions  into  which  the  land 
of  Egypt  was  divided,  free  from  all  duties.  They  were  provided  for 
from  the  public  stores,  out  of  which  they  received  a  stated  allouance 
of  corn,  and  all  the  other  necessaries  of  life."  In  chap.  1,  2,  3,  men 
tion  is  made  of  embalming  Jacob,  and  in  verse  26,  of  Joseph.  This 
was  a  well-known  custom  of  the  Egyptians.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
certain  facts  of  history  that  the  Hebrews  went  down  into  Egypt,  and, 
after  a  sojourn  of  many  years  there,  left  the  country  for  Canaan. 
The  history  of  Joseph  gives  the  only  explanation  of  an  event  that 
would  be  otherwise  inexplicable — the  entrance  of  the  Hebrews  into 
Egypt.  For  the  ancient  Egyptians  had  an  aversion  to  foreigners. 
"  They  prevented  all  strangers  from  penetrating  into  the  inteiior." 
It  was  not  till  the  sixth  century  before  Christ  that  foreigners  ac 
quired  much  knowledge  of  Egyptian  affairs.2 

The  exact  knowledge  of  Egyptian  affairs  and  of  the  language  (Cop 
tic)  of  the  country  possessed  by  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  cannot 
be  explained  by  supposed  commercial  relations  3  existing  between 
Egypt  and  Palestine  centuries  after  Moses.  We  have  commercial  re 
lations  with  Europe  and  Asia,  such  as  the  Hebrew  nation  in  the  age  of 
David,  and  even  in  that  of  Solomon,  never  had,  and  yet  how  ignorant 
we  are  of  many  of  the  customs  of  the  Old  World,  notwithstanding 
the  number  of  travellers  and  books  of  travels.  A  writer  six  or  eight 
centuries  after  the  time  of  Joseph,  living  in  Palestine,  would  have 
been  under  the  necessity  of  reproducing  the  condition  of  things 'in 
Egypt  in  the  time  of  Joseph,  and  of  learning  the  Coptic  language. 
But  there  is  nothing  in  the  history  of  Joseph  to  indicate  a  made-up 
story,  and  the  simplest  explanation  of  the  precise  knowledge  displayed 
is,  that  it  was  written  by  Moses,  or  originally  by  some  one  living  in 
Egypt  before  his  time. 

In  Exodus  ii,  3,  it  is  stated  that  the  infant  Moses  was  placed  in  an 
The  accuracy  ar^  (or  boat)  of  papyrus  daubed  with  bitumen  and  pitch. 

of  the  Penta-   it  was  customary  in  Egypt  to  make  boats   of   papyrus. 

teuchinitsrec-  ,  . 

ordof Egyptian   and  Wilkinson  remarks:      Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt 

that  pitcn  was  known  in  Egypt  at  that  time  [the  time 
of  Moses],  since  we  find  it  on  objects  which  have  been  preserved  of 
the  same  early  date."4  The  Israelites  during  their  bondage  in 

*See  Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  p.  319.  2Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  231. 

8  De  Wette  would  thus  explain  it.     Einleitung,  p.  264. 
4  Manners  and  Customs,  vol.  ii,  120. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  235 

Egypt  are  represented  as  making  brick  under  hard  taskmasters, 
who  compelled  them  to  furnish  a  fixed  quantity  of  brick  without 
giving  them  straw  with  which  to  make  them  (Exod.  v,  6-9,  etc). 

Bricks  were  made  in  Egypt  as  early,  at  least,  as  three  centuries 
before  Moses,  but  most  probably  eight  or  ten  centuries  before  him. 
They  were  made  both  with  straw  and  without  it,  and  were  unburnt.1 
The  manufacture  of  them  was  a  monopoly  of  the  government.  "To 
meet  with  Hebrews  in  the  sculptures,"  says  Wilkinson,  "  cannot 
reasonably  be  expected,  since  the  remains  in  that  part  of  Egypt 
where  they  lived  have  not  been  preserved ;  but  it  is  curious  to  dis 
cover  other  foreign  captives  occupied  in  the  same  manner,  over 
looked  by  similar  '  taskmasters,'  and  performing  the  very  same 
labours  as  the  Israelites  described  in  the  Bible  ;  and  no  one  can 
look  at  the  paintings  of  Thebes  representing  brickmakers  without 
a  feeling  of  the  highest  interest."5 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  making  of  brick  was  a  government 
monopoly,  and  this  corresponds  well  with  the  statement  in  Exodus, 
that  "  Pharaoh  commanded  the  taskmasters  of  the  people  and  their 
officers,  saying,  Ye  shall  no  more  give  the  people  straw  to  make 
brick,"  etc.  (chap,  v,  6,  7). 

In  the  description  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt  we  find  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  habits  of  that  country.  When  the  Nile  was  turned 
to  blood,  "  the  Egyptians  digged  round  about  the  river  for  water 
to  drink ;  for  they  could  not  drink  of  the  water  of  the  river  "  (chap, 
vii,  24).  At  present,  the  inhabitants  of  Egypt  use  the  water  of  the 
Nile,  having  filtered  it.  It  is  of  an  excellent  quality.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  it  was  used  from  the  most  ancient  times,  as  there  is  no 
other  source  of  supply. 

In  the  plague  of  hail,  "  the  flax  and  the  barley  were  smitten  ;  for 
the  barley  was  in  the  ear  and  the  flax  was  in  flower.  •  But  the  wheat 
and  the  rye  (spelt)  were  not  smitten,  for  they  were  late  "  (chap, 
ix,  31,  32).  Wheat,  barley,  and  flax  were  cultivated  in  Egypt  from 
the  earliest  times;  while  Herodotus  and  Pliny  speak  of  spelt  as  a 
product  of  the  country.  The  Nile  reaches  the  height  of  its  inundation 
in  the  last  of  October.  After  this,  wheat3  and  barley  are  sown,  the 
wheat  requiring  five  months  and  the  barley  four  for  their  growth 
and  ripening,  so  that  in  the  month  of  February,  about  which  time 

1  Some  Egyptian  bricks  containing  straw  we  saw  some  years  ago  in  Dr.  Abbott's 
collection. 

2  Manners  and  Customs,  vol.  ii,  195,  197. 

8  When  in  Egypt,  in  December,  1869,  the  author  observed  in  the  first  part  of  the 
month  that  the  wheat  had  just  appeared  above  the  ground,  while  the  barley  was 
well  advanced. 


236  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

the  plague  of  hail  occurred,  the  barley  was  in  the  ear,  but  the 
wheat  was  late,  or  not  grown  up.  The  minute  exactness  of  the 
statement  shows  that  the  writer  was  an  eye-witness.  For  it  would 
never  have  entered  the  mind  of  a  writer  centuries  afterward  to  give 
such  particulars — rather,  it. would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to 
do  it. 

In  the  description  of  the  conflict  between  Moses,  Aaron,  and  the 
magicians  of  Egypt,  it  is  stated  that  when  Aaron  threw  down  his 
rod  and  it  became  a  serpent,  the  magicians,  having  been  sent  for  by 
Pharaoh,  did  in  like  manner  with  their  enchantments,  and  cast  down 
their  rods,  which  became  serpents,  but  Aaron's  rod  swallowed  up 
their  rods  (chap,  vii,  u,  12).  Likewise  in  the  account  of  the  first 
and  the  second  plague  it  is  added :  "And  the  magicians  did  so  with 
their  enchantments."  In  the  third  plague,  however,  they  failed  to 
accomplish  anything,  and  confessed  in  it  the  finger  of  God.  Il 
was  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  priests  of  Egypt  would  yield  to  the 
superior  power  and  authority  of  Moses,  and  lose  their  influence  with 
the  people,  without  a  violent  struggle.  They  possessed  all  the  learn 
ing  of  Egypt,  and  it  may  well  be  supposed  that  both  the  "  wise 
men  "  and  "  sorcerers  "  were  priests;  at  least,  that  the  sorcerers  were 
in  their  employ.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  magicians  of  Egypt 
possessed  supernatural  power,  for  it  is  said  that  they  produced  their 
effects  through  enchantments  (or  secret,  magical  arts),  a  species  of 
legerdemain.  If  they  had  possessed  supernatural  power  they  might 
have  produced  lice  as  well  as  frogs. 

Aaron  and  the  Egyptian  priests  are  represented  as  having  rods 
This  was  an  Egyptian  custom.  "  When  walking  from  home,  Egyp 
tian  gentlemen  frequently  carried  sticks "  (Wilkinson).  North 
west  of  Egypt,  in  Cyrenaica,  there  lived  in  ancient  times  the  Psylli,  a 
people  celebrated  as  serpent-charmers  (Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.,  lib.  7,  2,  2). 
Persons  of  similar  skill  have  been  found  in  modern  Egypt.1  Hassel- 
quist  states  that  the  serpent-charmers  of  Egypt  asserted  that  they 
could  turn  a  serpent  into  a  stick,  and  co7npe-l  it  to  lie  as  dead?  This 
throws  light  on  one  of  the  feats  of  the  magicians. 

Before  considering  the  departure  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt,  it 
Tte  uestion  ^ecomes  proper  to  discuss  the  vexed  question  of  their 
of  the  great  in-  great  increase  in  Egypt.  The  number  of  their  males 
Israelites  "to  was  a^out  $'lx  hundred  thousand  (Exod.  xii,  37).  If 
Egypt  conaid-  this  number  was  not  repeated,  and  if  we  had  not  the 
number  of  each  tribe,3  and  the  sum  total  afterwards 
given  as  six  hundred  and  three  thousand  five  hundred  and  fifty,  we 

1  See  Lane's  Modern  Egyptians. 

*In  Hengstenberg's  Die  Biicher  Moses  und  Egypten.  *See  Num.  i-iv. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  237 

might  suppose  that  the  text l  had  been  corrupted.    But  with  the  facts 
before  us,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  numbers  are  to  be  rejected. 

In  considering  the  question,  two  points  are  first  to  be  determined  : 
the  number  of  Israelites  who  went  with  Jacob  down  into  Egypt,  and 
the  duration  of  the  sojourn  there.  In  Genesis  xlvi  we  have  a  list 
embracing  those  who  came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  bearing  every  in 
dication  of  being  the  original  family  register  from  which  the  subse 
quent  lists  are  in  part  taken.  It  is  evident  that  this  table  was  not 
made  up  in  a  post-Mosaic  age  to  give  the  names  of  the  heads  of 
families  that  had  become  distinguished,  since  some  persons  in  the 
list  are  never  mentioned  afterward,  most  probably  because  they  left 
no  families. 

Objections  have,  indeed,  been  made  to  this  genealogical  record, 
and  to  the  statements  it  gives  respecting  the  descendants  Objectlong  to 
of  Jacob  who  came  with  him  into  Egypt.  It  is  said  that  the  list  of  Ja- 
**  the  sons  of  Israel  carried  Jacob  their  father,  and  their 
little  ones,  and  their  wives  "  (ver.  5),  into  Egypt.  "  His  sons  and  his 
sons'  sons  with  him,  his  daughters,  and  his  sons'  daughters,  and  all 
his  seed,  brought  he  with  him  into  Egypt  "  (ver.  7).  An  enumeration 
is  given  of  these  descendants,  and  it  is  added:  "All  the  souls  that 
came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  which  came  out  of  his  loins,  besides  Ja 
cob's  sons'  wives,  all  the  souls  were  threescore  and  six;  and  the  sons 
of  Joseph,  which  were  born  to  him  in  Egypt,  were  two  souls  ;  all 
the  souls  of  the  house  of  Jacob,  which  came  into  Egypt,  were  three 
score  and  ten  "  (verses  26-27). 

There  are  several  persons  in  this  list  who  must  have  been  born 
after  Jacob  entered  Egypt,  and  there  is  nothing  surprising  in  the 
statement  that  they  came  tJiitJicr  with  Jacob,  though  not  born  till 
some  years  afterward,  when  we  reflect  that  Joseph's  two  sons,  though 
stated  by  the  historian  to  have  been  born  there,  yet  are  said  to  have 
come  with  Jacob  into  Egypt.  It  is  evident  that  Hezron  and  Hamul, 
sons  of  Pharez,  were  born  there,  and  also  that  several  sons  of  Benja 
min  were  born  after  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt.  For  Benjamin  at 
that  time  was  only  about  twenty-two  or  twenty-three  years  old,  and  ten 
sons  are  given  him  (ver.  21).  It  is  utterly  incredible  that  Benjamin 
at  that  time  of  life  should  have  had  so  many  sons,  almost  as  many 
as  his  father  had  in  his  whole  life  by  all  his  wives ! 2  Four  sons 
are  attributed  to  Reuben  in  the  genealogy  (ver.  9).  It  is  probable 

Both  the  Samaritan  text  and  the  Septuagint  agree  with  the  number  about 
600,000  (Exodus  xii,  37). 

*  Colenso,  to  make  out  his  point,  says  that  Benjamin  was  more  than  twenty-two 
years  old  at  that  time,  according  to  the  story.  "  It  is,  therefore,  quite  possible,' 
says  he,  "  that  he  may  have  had  ten  sons,  perhaps  by  several  wives." 


238  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

that  two  of  these  were  born  in  Egypt ;  for  about  a  year  before  he 
came  thither,  or  even  less,  he  had  but  two,  since  he  says  after 
the  first  sending  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  into  Egypt  for  corn :  "  Slay 
my  two  sons  "  (Gen.  xlii,  37) ;  if  he  had  had  more  at  that  time  he 
would  have  named  them.  It  is  stated  (chap,  xlvi,  12)  that  Er  and 
Onan,  sons  of  Judah,  died  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  it  would  seem 
that  Hezron  and  Hamul,  his  grandsons,  are  substituted  for  them  in 
the  genealogical  list. 

The  statement  of  the  historian  that  the  sons  of  Jacob  brought 
their  little  ones  (*]&,  little  children,  boys  and  girls,  Gesenius)  and  wives 
into  Egypt,  shows  that  the  grandchildren  of  Jacob  were  little  chil 
dren,  and  that  the  historian  knew  well  the  ages  of  the  sons  of  Jacob, 
their  family  affairs,  and  that  several  in  his  account,  though  said  to 
have  come  into  Egypt  with  Jacob,  were  really  born  in  Egypt.  Quite 
similar  is  the  language  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  Levi 
paid  tithes  in  Abraham  to  Melchizeclek,  for  he  was  in  the  loins  of 
Abraham  when  the  patriarch  met  that  distinguished  priest.  (Heb. 
vii,  9,  10). 

In  like  manner  we  could  say  of  a  family  of  French  descent  that 
they  came  from  France.  In  the  Hebrew  mind  the  idea  of  the  son 
existing  in  the  father  was  deeply  rooted.  Jacob  lived  seventeen 
years  after  his  arrival  in  Egypt,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  the 
genealogical  list  gives  the  family  history  down  to  his  death.  It  is 
evident  that  the  historian  aimed  to  give  the  round  number  seventy, 
which  seems  to  have  been  sacred  among  the  Hebrews,1  and  also  to 
show  from  what  a  small  number  the  Israelites  had  grown  to  be  so 
great  a  nation  ;  as  it  is  said  in  Deut.  x,  22  :  "  Thy  fathers  went  down 
into  Egypt  with  threescore  and  ten  persons  ;  and  now  the  Lord  thy 
God  hath  made  thee  as  the  stars  of  heaven  for  multitude."  To  this 
number  seventy,  the  wives  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  are  to  be  added  ;  per 
haps,  also,  other  women.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  there  were  slaves  in 
the  household  of  Jacob,  as  we  find  that  Abraham  had  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  in  his  (Gen.  xiv,  14) ;  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  fix  the 
whole  number  of  the  household  of  Jacob,  though  it  must  have  num 
bered  one  or  two  hundred. 

Respecting  the  length  of  the  abode  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  God 
LeuRtn  of  the  declares  to  Abraham  :  "  Thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in 
stay  in  Egypt.  a  ian(}  tnat  [s  not  theirs,  and  shall  serve  them  ;  and  they 
shall  afflict  them  four  hundred  years ;  and  also  that  nation,  whom 
they  shall  serve,  will  I  judge  ;  and  afterwards  shall  they  come  out 
with  great  substance.  And  thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers  in  peace ; 

1  Hence  Gesenius  remarks :  "t^Wlp,  seventy,  often  as  a  larger  round  number 
Pen.  I,  3;  Exod.  xv,  27;  xxiv,  I  ;  Num.  xi,  16,"  etc. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  239 

fhou  shalt  be  buried  in  a  good  old  age.  But  in  the  fourth  genera 
tion  they  shall  come  hither  again."  (Gen.  xv,  13-16).  If  this  language 
does  not  refer  to  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  and  state  that 
that  sojourn  should  last  four  hundred  years  (expressed  prophetically 
in  round  numbers),  it  is  difficult  to  say  what  language  would  refer  to 
it.  And  this  does  not  include  the  time  that  the  patriarchs  dwelt  in 
Canaan,  for  the  declaration  is  made  in  reference  to  the  seed  of  Abra 
ham,  while  he  himself  was  to  go  to  his  fathers  in  peace.  His  seed 
was  to  dwell  in  a  land  not  their  own,  not  Canaan  surely,  which  had 
been  already  promised  to  Abraham,  but  in  the  fourth  generation 
they  were  to  come  thither  again  (to  Canaan).  The  fourth  genera 
tion,  standing  in  close  connexion  with  the  four  hundred  years?  de 
notes  the  same  period  of  time.  Gesenius  remarks  on  the  word 
"in,  a  generation  :  "  In  the  times  of  the  patriarchs  it  was  reckoned  at 
a  hundred  years  "  (Heb.  Lex).  So  also  Fiirst  (Heb.  Lex). 

In  Exodus  xii,  40,  the  length  of  the  abode  in  Egypt,  as  being  his 
torical,  is  fixed  with  exactness  :  "  Now  the  sojourn  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  which  they  sojourned a  in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years."  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  reads:  "The  sojourn  of  the 
children  of  Israel  and  of  their  fathers,  which  they  sojourned  in  the 
land  of  Canaan  and  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years."  The  Septuagint  has  the  following:  "  The  sojourn  of 
the  children  of  Israel,  which  they  sojourned  in  the  land  of  Egypt  and 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years."  But  the 
addition,  "  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
four  hundred  years  during  which  the  Israelites  were  to  dwell  in 
Egypt  (Gen.  xv,  13),  which  number  both  the  Samaritan  and  Greek 
Pentateuch  contain,  in  agreement  with  the  Jewish.  This  period, 
then,  of  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  rests  upon  strong  grounds, 
and  is  a  refutation  of  all  the  inferences  and  absurdities  that  Colenso 
draws  from  the  short  sojourn  of  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years.* 

The  only  difficulty  in  connexion  with  this  period  of  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Moses  and  Aaron  appear 

'This  number,  four  hundred  years,  is  found  in  the  Jewish,  Samaritan,  and  Greek 
Pentateuch  of  the  LXX,  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  and  in  the  Peshito  Syriac. 

2  We  have  somewhat  departed  from  the  English  version  in  this  passage.  "  The 
sojourn  which  they  sojourned  "  is  the  force  of  the  passage  confirmed  by  the  LXX, 
Pcshito-Syriac,  and  the  Vulgate. 

8  St.  Paul  (Gal.  iii,  17),  speaking  of  the  covenant  that  God  made  with  Abraham, 
says  that  "  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul " 
it.  But  this  period  is  incidentally  mentioned,  and  the  number  of  years  taken  from 
the  LXX  used  by  Paul's  readers  forms  no  part  of  the  argument.  If  St.  Paul  had 
been  questioned  on  the  subject  he  would  doubtless  have  answered  that  he  had  r# 
revelation  on  chronology. 


240  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

to  be  the  great-grandsons  of  Levi,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  make 
Probable om is-  ^our  generat1'ons  extend  over  four  hundred  and  thirty 
sion  of  several  years.  But  it  is  highly  probable  that  several  genera 
tions  between  Levi  and  Moses  and  Aaron  have  been 
omitted.  It  is  well  known  that  Matthew,  in  his  genealogy  of  our 
Lord,  omits  several  generations.  In  chapter  i,  8,  he  says:  "  Joram 
begat  Ozias  "  (Uzziah),  while  in  fact  there  were  three  kings  between 
these  two;  the  order  being,  Joram,  Ahaziah,  Joash.  Amaziah,  Uz 
ziah  (Ozias).  In  verse  n  he  omits  Jehoiakim  after  Josiah.  In 
i  Chron.  xxvi,  24,  in  reference  to  the  regulations  of  King  David, 
it  is  said  :  "  Shebuel,  the  son  of  Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses,  was 
ruler  of  the  treasures."  Here  we  have  about  a  dozen  generations 
omitted  between  Shebuel  and  Gershom.  Likewise  in  Ezra  vii,  1-5, 
we  have  six  generations  omitted  between  Meraioth  and  Azariah, 
which  are  found  in  i  Chron.  vi,  6-9. 

From  Nahshon  (mentioned  Num.  i,  7)  to  David  (i  Chron.  ii, 
11-15)  there  are  five  generations,  running  through  a  period  of  about 
four  hundred  years.  Now  it  is  highly  probable — we  might  say  cer 
tain — that  several  generations  have  been  omitted,  as  there  would  be 
about  eighty  years  to  a  generation  if  this  were  not  the  case.  That 
several  generations  have  been  omitted  is  rendered  quite  certain 
from  the  fact  that  from  Aaron  to  Zadok,  who  was  priest  in  the  time 
of  David,  there  were  ten  generations  (i  Chron.  vi,  3-11),  tunce  as 
many  as  are  given  from  Nahshon  (in  the  time  of  Moses)  to  David. 
That  several  generations  have  been  omitted  between  Levi  and 
Moses  and  Aaron  appears  exceedingly  probable  from  the  fact  that, 
according  to  i  Chron.  ii,  18-20,  Bezaleel.  a  contemporary  with 
Moses,  mentioned  Exod.  xxxi,  2,  was  the  seventh  generation  from 
Jacob;  and  from  i  Chron.  vii,  20—27,  it  would  seem  that  there  were 
eleven  generations  from  Jacob  to  Joshua.  If,  then,  in  one  case  we 
find  seven,  and  in  another  case  eleven,  generations,  extending  to  the 
time  of  Moses,  it  is  difficult  to  think  that  Moses  is  only  the  fourth 
generation  from  Jacob. 

It  is  also  evident  from  Num.  iii,  19,  27,  28,  that  there  must  have 
been  several  generations  that  have  been  omitted  between  Kohath  and 
Moses.  For  in  the  first  of  these  passages  it  is  said  that  the  sons  of 
Kohath  were  Amram,  Izehar,  Hebron,  and  Uzziel ;  and  in  the  other 
two  that  these  sons  gave  the  family  names  of  Amramites,  Izeharites, 
Hebronites,  and  Uzzielites,  and  that  the  number  of  their  males  from 
a  month  old  and  upward  was  eight  thousand  and  six  hundred.  If 
no  links  are  omitted  in  the  genealogy,  then  the  male  descendants  of 
the  grandfather  of  Moses  in  the  lifetime  of  the  latter  reached  this 
great  number  of  eight  thousand  six  hundred,  which  is  utterly  in 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  241 

credible,  and  would  make  the  whole  number  of  descendants  seven 
teen  or  eighteen  thousand.  The  historian  could  never  have  been 
guilty  of  such  an  absurdity  as  this.  Here  the  question  arises,  Be 
tween  what  names  do  the  omitted  generations  occur  ?  As  Kohath 
has  such  a  large  number  of  descendants,  the  omitted  generations 
must  be  placed  between  him  and  Moses ;  and  as  it  is  said  that  Amram 
married  Jochebed,  his  father's  sister,  daughter  of  Levi,  born  to  him 
in  Egypt  (Num.  xxvi,  59),  we  are  compelled  to  interpolate  the  miss 
ing  links  between  Amram  and  Moses.  Nor  does  the  statement  that 
Jochebed  bare  to  Amram  Aaron  and  Moses  negative  it,  for  it  is 
said  in  Genesis  xlvi,  15,  "These  be  the  sons  of  Leah  which  she  bare 
to  Jacob"  thirty-three,  of  whom  only  six  were  her  own  sons,  and  the 
rest  were  her  grandchildren  and  great  grandchildren.  In  the  same 
way  Matthew  says,  "  Joram  begat  Ozias,"  although  there  were  three 
generations  intervening,  so  that  in  fact  Ozias  (Uzziah)  was  Joram 's 
great-great-grandson. 

Allowing  an  abode  of  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  in  fertile 
Egypt,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  the  biblical  statement  that  the  adult 
males  of  the  Hebrews  amounted  to  about  six  hundred  thousand.  Pop 
ulation  doubles  every  twenty-five  years  where  there  are  no  obstruc 
tions  to  its  natural  increase.  On  the  supposition  that  the  whole  family 
of  Jacob  that  went  into  Egypt  consisted  of  only  eighty-two  persons, 
the  lowest  estimate,  we  should  have  at  the  end  of  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  a  population  of  more  than  twelve  millions.  But  if  we 
suppose  the  number  eighty-two  represents  the  number  of  the  house 
hold  of  Jacob  at  his  death,  we  should  have  more  than  seven  millions 
as  the  number  of  the  Israelites  at  the  time  of  the  exodus.1  But  if 
the  abode  in  Egypt  lasted  but  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years,  and  if 
at  the  beginning  of  this  period  there  were  but  eighty-two  persons, 
the  whole  number  of  the  Israelites  at  the  exodus  would  be  only 
thirty-one  or  thirty-two  thousand.3  And  to  reach  the  sum  of  two 
millions,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should  have  numbered  more 
than  five  thousand  when  they  went  down  into  Egypt.8  Although 
population  may  for  a  considerable  length  of  time  double  itself  every 
twenty-five  years,  yet  it  soon  meets  with  checks  that  greatly  retard 
it,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  reach  sure  results. 

Respecting  the  large  numbers  that  left  Egypt,  about  two  millions 

*On  the  supposition  that  population  doubles  every  twenty-five  years,  we  should 
have  the  following  formula  for  the  whole  number  of  Israelites  at  the  end  of  430 
years,  by  dividing  430  by  25  — I7.2=the  number  of  times  the  population  would 
double.  82X217>a=i2,346,o84.  But  if  we  count  from  the  death  of  Jacob  we  shall 
have  for  the  whole  number,  82X2ie-M=7, 706,032. 

"215-5-25=8.6;  82X29'6=3i,773.  82,ooo,ooo-i-28-5=5,i6i. 

VOL.  I.— 16 


242  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

of  souls,  Rawlinson  remarks :  "  They  seem  required  by  the  general 
tenor  of  the  whole  narrative,  especially  by  the  great  unwillingness  of 
the  Egyptians  to  let  the  people  go,  and  by  their  power  within  little 
more  than  a  generation  to  conquer  and  occupy  Canaan.  In  Ger 
many  the  best  critics,  including  so  subtle  and  little  credulous  a 
writer  as  Ewald,  accept  them."  J 

Respecting  the  great  number  of  Israelites  that  left  Egypt  at  once, 
Professor  Rawlinson  well  remarks :  "  It  is  certain  migrations  of 
tribes  quite  as  large  as  that  of  Israel  is  said  to  have  been,  have 
from  time  to  time  taken  place  in  the  East,  and,  indeed,  in  the  West 
also.  Such  migrations  have  frequently  been  sudden.  The  emigrants 
have  started  off  with  their  women,  children,  and  all  their  possessions, 
on  a  certain  day ;  they  have  traversed  enormous  distances,  much 
greater  than  the  Israelites  traversed,  and  have  finally  settled  them 
selves  in  new  abodes."  He  gives  a  striking  instance  of  this.9 

When  the  Israelites  were  about  to  leave  Egypt,  Moses,  in  accord- 
The  bestowal  ance  with  a  divine  direction,  ordered  the  Israelites  to 
of  gifts  upon  ask  Of  the  Egyptians  jewels  of  gold,  jewels  of  silver,  and 

tu6       ISI'U  elites  „  . 

by  the  Egyp-  raiment,  and  they  did  so.  And  Jehovah  gave  the  peo 
ple  favour  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  and  they  gave 
these  things  unto  them."  In  this  passage  we  have  departed  from  the 
English  version,  but  in  so  doing  we  have  better  expressed  the  force 
of  the  Hebrew ;  the  verb  bxisr,  to  ask  (rendered  to  borrow  by  our  trans 
lators),  is  very  often  used  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  rarely  ever  in 
the  sense  to  borrow.  The  Hiphil  conjugation,  Vfc«!fil,  to  let  ask,  prop 
erly  to  offer  willingly  (Fiirst,  Heb.  Lex.),  is  translated  to  hnd  in  our 
version  without  any  sufficient  authority.  This  Hiphil  form  occurs 
but  twice  in  the  Hebrew  Bible — in  i  Sam.  i,  28  and  in  Exod.  xii,  36. 
In  the  former  passage  it  has  the  sense  of  given  freely,  without  any 
expectation  of  return  ;  for  Hannah  says  respecting  Samuel,  "  I  have 
given  him  to  Jehovah  all  his  days."  Here  the  meaning  "lent"  would 
be  improper.  After  the  death  of  their  firstborn  the  Egyptians  were 
exceedingly  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  Israelites,  and  would  cheerfully 
GIVE  them  almost  any  thing  to  effect  this.  "And  the  Egyptians 
were  urgent  upon  the  people  that  they  might  send  them  out  of  the 
land  in  haste ;  for  they  said,  We  be  all  dead  men"  (Exod.  xii,  33). 
Here  the  question  arises,  Did  the  Egyptians  expect  the  Israelites 

'In  Modern  Skepticism,  p.  276. 

"  It  was  on  the  5th  day  of  January,  1771,  the  day  appointed  by  the  high  priests, 
that  Oubacha  began  his  march  with  seventy  thousand  families.  Most  of  the  hordes 
were  there  assembled  in  the  steppes,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Volga,  and  the  u-koh 
multitude  followed  him" — Hommaire  de  Hell.  Travels,  p.  227,  E.  T.  In  Modem 
Skepticism. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  243 

to  return  to  Egypt  ?  We  cannot  answer  this  with  certainty ;  but  it 
is  very  probable  that  they  became  ultimately  convinced  that  the 
Israelites  intended  no  return,  and  hence  Pharaoh's  obstinate  refusal 
to  let  them  go.  Certainly  Moses  did  not  promise  Pharaoh  that  they 
would  return.  It  is  evident,  if  the  Egyptians  did  not  expect  the 
Israelites  to  return,  that  there  could  have  been  no  lending  to  the 
Hebrews  by  them. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

THE   CREDIBILITY    OF    THE    HISTORY    CONTAINED    IN    THE 
PENTATEUCH  -  CONCLUSION. 


passover  of  the  Jews,  instituted  just  before  the  Israelites  left 
Egypt,  in  commemoration  of  the  death  of  the  firstborn  of  the 
Egyptians  and  the  passing  over  —  the  preservation  of  —  the  Internai  credi- 

firstborn  sons  of  Israel,  is  a  striking  proof  of  the  truth  of  blllty   of   the 

history  of  the 
the  events  it  commemorates.    It  was  ordered  :     This  day  institution    of 

shall  be  unto  you  for  a  memorial  ;  and  ye  shall  keep  it  a  the  Passover- 
feast  to  Jehovah  throughout  your  generations  :  ye  shall  keep  it  a 
feast  by  an  ordinance  for  ever"  (Exod.  xii,  14).  We  accordingly 
find  the  passover  was  kept  on  the  fourteenth  of  the  first  month  of 
the  second  year  after  the  Israelites  left  Egypt  (Num.  ix,  5)  ;  and  when 
Joshua  entered  Canaan  he  kept  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth  day 
of  the  month  (Josh,  v,  10);  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  yearly 
festival  kept  at  Shiloh  was  the  passover  (Judges  xxi,  19).  When 
King  Josiah  introduced  important  reforms  in  Judah  and  in  a  part  of 
Samaria,  he  kept  the  feast  of  the  passover  on  a  magnificent  scale, 
and  it  is  said,  "  Surely  there  was  not  holden  such  a  passover  from 
the  days  of  the  judges  that  judged  Israel,  nor  in  all  the  days  of  the 
kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the  kings  of  Judah  "  (2  Kings  xxiii,  22).  This 
language  implies  that  the  passover  had  been  kept  in  the  days  of  the 
judges  and  in  those  of  the  kings.1  In  commemoration  of  the  pres 
ervation  of  the  firstborn  of  the  sons  of  Israel,  all  the  firstborn  males 

1  Colenso  absurdly  derives  the  passover  from  the  Canaanitish  custom  of  making 
their  sons  "pass  over"  to  Moloch  or  Baal,  the  Sun-god  ;  and  thus  the  Hebrew  hi«i- 
torian  has  given  a  wrong  origin  to  the  festival  in  ascribing  it  to  Jehovah's  passing 
over  the  firstborn  of  Israel.  He  supposes  this  festival  was  kept,  after  the  example 
of  the  tribes  of  Canaan,  with  human  as  well  as  animal  sacrifices.  But  we  have  not 
a  particle  of  proof  that  the  Canaanites  had  any  great  spring  festival  of  the  kind.  He 
utterly  confounds  two  entirely  different  words,  np&,/aro*A,  tc  pass  over,  and  "P2J?n» 
hffyir,  to  make  pass  over,  to  offer  (to  Moloch,  for  example).  Colenso's  The  Penta 
teuch  and  the  Moabite  Stone. 


244  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

of  whatever  kind  were  given  to  Jehovah,  but  the  firstborn  ass  was 
to  be  redeemed  with  a  lamb,  or  its  neck  was  to  be  broken.  The 
firstborn  of  men  were  to  be  redeemed  (Exod.  xiii,  12,  13). 

If  we  suppose  that  the  feast  of  the  passover  was  originated  ages 
after  Moses,  along  with  the  book  of  Exodus,  there  would  be  the  in 
superable  difficulty  of  its  being  stated  that  Moses  had  instituted  the 
festival  at  the  time  of  the  exodus,  and  that  he  had  expressly  enjoined 
upon  the  Israelites  its  annual  observance.  But  how  could  a  nation 
be  made  to  believe  that  they  had  kept  such  an  observance  from  the 
days  of  Moses,  when  they  had  never  heard  of  it  before  ?  But  if  we 
are  to  suppose  that  the  festival  had  been  kept  by  the  Israelites  from 
the  earliest  ages,  it  must  have  been  for  certain  reasons.  How,  in  that 
case,  could  a  new  history  make  them  believe  that  it  was  for  a  pur 
pose  entirely  different  from  what  they  for  ages  had  supposed  ? 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  land  of  Goshen,  where  the  Israel 
ites  dwelt,  was  between  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Nile,  the  Pelusiac, 
and  the  Red  Sea.  The  LXX,  which  is  of  considerable  authority  in 
Egyptian  localities,  renders  Goshen  by  "  Gesem  in  Arabia  "  (Gen. 
xlvi,  34).  At  the  time  of  Christ,  the  Greeks  called  that  part  of 
Egypt  between  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Nile  and  the  Red  Sea, 
Arabia.  According  to  Gen.  xiii,  17,  Goshen  was  near  the  Philistines. 
'As  to  the  route  l  of  the  Israelites,  all  that  we  can  maintain  with  any 
Route  of  the  certainty  is,  that  they  left  Rameses  (a  locality  that  is 
exodus.  not  identified)  in  Goshen,  thirty  or  forty  miles  west  of 

Etham,  on  the  borders  of  the  desert,  and  that  they  crossed  the  upper 
end  of  the  Red  Sea  above  Ghebel  Attaka,  probably  not  far  from 
Suez,  and  that  they  then  most  likely  encamped  by  the  Wells  of 
Moses*  (Ayun  Mousa), — probably  so  called  from  this  circumstance — 
situated  in  the  desert  five  or  six  miles  south-east  of  Suez.  After 

'Some  find  a  difficulty  in  Exodus  xiii,  18,  where,  according  to  the  English  version, 
"  the  children  of  Israel  went  up  harnessed  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  Colenso  con 
tends  that  O^ETpn,  rendered  "harnessed,"  properly  means  "armed,"  and  that  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  that,  if  six  hundred  thousand  Hebrews  had  been  armed,  they 
would  have  been  thrown  into  a  panic  at  the  sight  of  Pharaoh's  army.  The  ancient 
versions  generally  render  D^ffl^n  armed.  Gesenius  gives  it  fierce,  active,  eager, 
brave  in  battle  ;  and,  indeed,  the  word  is  used  in  the  sense  ready  for  battle,  drawn 
up  in  line,  in  seveial  instances.  It  seems  best  to  render  the  passage,  "The  chil 
dren  of  Israel,  drawn  tip  in  regular  order  (as  if  for  battle),  went  up  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  As  they  fought  with  the  Amalekites  within  two  months  after  leaving  Egypt, 
it  is  evident  that  they  had  at  that  time  already  obtained  arms  from  some  source. 

2  Their  first  encampment  after  leaving  Rameses  was  Succoth  (Exod.  xii,  37  ;  Num. 
xxxiii,  5),  which  was  excavated  early  in  1883  and  identified  by  M.  Naville.  The 
names  Pithom  and  Succoth  {Pilum  and  77/w/&«/)are  found  in  combination  on  the 
monuments  of  the  place.  It  is  situated  about  ten  miles  v.-est  of  Lake  Timsah,  near 
the  Roman  Heroopolis,  and  was  evidently  a  store  city,  built  by  Israelites  (Exod.i,  1 1). 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  245 

this  v  they  went  out  into  the  wilderness  of  Shur ;  and  they  went 
three  days  in  the  wilderness,  and  found  no  water  "  (Exod.  xv,  22). 
With  the  exception  of  the  Wells  of  Moses,  the  country  east  of  the 
Red  Sea  for  many  miles  is  a  sandy  desert.  Professor  Palmer  re 
marks  on  the  passage  just  quoted  from  Exodus,  "  I  doubt  if  a  more 
suggestive  description  could  possibly  be  given  of  this  monotonous, 
waterless  waste,  the  only  impressive  feature  of  which  is  the  long 
vmr,  or  '  wall,'  which  forms  its  northern  limit." 

"The  difficulty  of  providing  water  for  the  cattle  by  which  they 
were  accompanied  has  proved  a  great  stumbling-block  to  many;  but 
this  Mr.  Holland  has  considerably  lessened  by  a  novel  and  ingenious 
suggestion.  He  believes  that,  instead  of  being  an  incumbrance  to 
the  movements  of  the  host,  the  cattle  were  used  as  beasts  of  burden, 
and  that,  in  addition  to  the  camp  furniture,  each  carried  its  own 
supply  of  water,  sufficient  for  several  days,  in  water-skins  slung  at 
its  sides,  precisely  as  Sir  Samuel  Baker  found  them  doing  at  the 
present  day  in  Abyssinia."1  "And  when  they  came  to  Marah, 
they  could  not  drink  of  the  waters  of  Marah,  for  they  were  bitter." 
On  this  Professor  Palmer  remarks  :  "  Now  the  soil  throughout  this  part 
of  the  country  being  strongly  impregnated  with  natnin  [native  car 
bonate  of  soda,  the  nitre  of  the  Bible],  produces  none  but  brackish 
water ;  and  it  is  worth  observing  that  the  first  of  these  springs  with 
which  we  meet,  'Ain  Hawwdrah,  is  reached  on  the  third  day  of  our 
desert  journey  to  Suez." 

They  next  "  came  to  Elim,  where  were  twelve  wells  of  water,  and 
threescore  and  ten  palm-trees."  "Here,  again,"  says  Palmer,  "our 
own  experience  accords  with  that  of  the  Israelites,  for  our  next  sta 
tion  is  in  Wady  Gharandel,  which  contains  a  considerable  amount 
of  vegetation,  palm-trees  in  great  numbers  among  the  rest,  and  a 
perennial  stream."  "And  they  removed  from  Elim,  and  encamped 
by  the  Red  Sea"  (Num.  xxxiii,  10).  As  the  Israelites  had  wagons 
and  a  great  deal  of  baggage,  there  was  but  one  route  to  the  sea  that 
was  practicable,  by  Wady  Taiyebeh,  from  which  "  the  coast  is  open 
and  passable ;  and,  moreover,  the  mouth  of  the  valley  affords  a  fine 
clear  space  for  their  encampment  by  the  sea,"  as  Palmer  clearly 
shows ;  and  "  the  wilderness  of  Sin  will  be  the  narrow  strip  of  desert 
which  fringes  the  coast  south  of  Wady  Taiyebeh." 

According  to  Palmer,  the  only  practicable  route  from  the  encamp 
ment  at  the  Red  Sea  to  Mount  Sinai  was  at  that  time  Palmer's  loca- 
by  Wady  Feirdn,  in  which  he  locates  Rephidim.  '  If,"  ^  tLTod 
Bays  he,  "we  read  the  verse,  (Exodus  xix,  12),  'and  sea. 
they  departed  from  Rephidim,  and  pitched  in  the  wilderness  of 
1  The  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  225. 


246  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Sinai/  as  implying  a  break  in  the  march  between  Rephidim  and  the 
Mount  of  the  Law,  we  shall  find  that  the  natural  route  from  Egypt 
to  Sinai  accords  exactly  with  the  simple  and  concise  account  given 
in  the  Bible  of  the  exodus  of  the  chosen  people." 

"  In  these  conclusions  all  the  members  of  the  expedition  are 
agreed.  Mr.  Holland,  it  is  true,  dissents  upon  one  point,  the  posi 
tion  of  Rephidim.  ...  In  the  main  facts  of  the  routes,  however,  and 
in  the  identification  of  Jebel  Musa  with  Mount  Sinai,  our  investiga 
tions  have  led  us  to  form  one  unanimous  opinion. 

"  We  are  thus  able  not  only  to  trace  out  a  route  by  which  the  chil 
dren  of  Israel  could  have  journeyed,  but  also  to  show  its  identity 
with  that  so  concisely  but  graphically  laid  down  in  the  Pentateuch. 
We  have  seen,  moreover,  that  it  leads  to  a  mountain  answering  in 
every  respect  to  the  description  of  the  Mountain  of  the  Law.  The 
chain  of  topographical  evidence  is  complete."  ' 

Professor  Palmer  identifies  Ras  Susafeh,  the  magnificent  bluff  at 
the  north  end  of  Jebel  Mtisa,  as  the  Mount  of  the  Law.  This  bluff 
fronts  the  great  plain  Er  Rahah,  and  commands  a  view  of  its  entire 
extent.  The  plain,  according  to  the  measurements  of  Captain 
Palmer,  made  on  the  spot,  is  large  enough  to  accommodate  two  mill 
ions  of  human  beings,  allowing  about  a  square  yard  to  each  one.* 
He  found,  also,  numerous  traditions  among  the  Arabs  of  the  Sinaitic 
Peninsula  respecting  Moses  and  the  other  Israelites.  The  alleged 
barrenness  of  the  Arabian  peninsula  has  been  made  an  objection  to 
the  history  of  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert.  But,  apart 
from  the  divine  power  that  supported  them  in  a  miraculous  way, 
Palmer  has  found  many  indications  that  the  peninsula  was  once  far 
more  fertile  than  it  is  now. 

The  next  station  of  the  Israelites  after  leaving  Sinai  was  Kibroth- 
Tne  next  star-  nattaavan>  tne  graves  of  those  that  lusted.  Palmer 
tion  after  Sinai  identifies  this  station  with  a  place  called  by  the  Arabs 
Erweis  el  Ebeirig,  *'  covered  with  small  inclosures  of 
stones.  These  are  evidently  the  remains  of  a  large  encampment, 
but  they  differ  essentially  in  their  arrangement  from  any  others  which 
I  have  seen  in  Sinai  or  elsewhere  in  Arabia.  .  .  .  The  remains  ex 
tend  for  miles  around,  and  on  examining  them  more  carefully  dur 
ing  a  second  visit  to  the  Peninsula,  with  Mr.  Drake,  we  found  our 
first  impression  fully  confirmed,  and  collected  abundant  proofs  that 
it  was  in  reality  a  deserted  camp.  The  small  stones  which  formerly 
served,  as  they  do  in  the  present  day,  for  hearths,  in  many  places 
still  showed  signs  of  the  action  of  fire,  and  on  digging  beneath  the 
surface  we  found  pieces  of  charcoal  in  great  abundance.  Here  and 
1  Desert  of  Uie  Exodus,  p.  228.  a  Ibid.,  pp.  99,  102. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  247 

dhere  were  larger  inclosures  marking  the  encampment  of  some  person 
more  important  than  the  rest,  and  just  outside  the  camp  were  a  num 
ber  of  stone  heaps,  which,  from  their  shape  and  position,  could  be 
nothing  else  but  graves.  The  site  is  a  most  commanding  one,  and 
admirably  suited  for  the  assembling  of  a  large  concourse  of  people. 

"  Arab  tradition  declares  these  curious  remains  to  be  '  the  relics 
of  a  large  Pilgrim  or  Hajj  caravan,  who  in  remote  ages  pitched  their 
tents  at  this  spot  on  their  way  to  'Ain  Hudherah,  and  who  were  soon 
afterward  lost  in  the  desert  of  the  Tih,  and  never  heard  of  again. 
For  various  reasons  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  this  legend  is  au 
thentic,  that  it  refers  to  the  Israelites,  and  that  we  have  in  the  scat 
tered  stones  of  Erweis  el  Ebeirig  real  traces  of  the  exodus."  * 

The  next  encampment  was  Hazeroth,  which  Palmer  evidently 
identifies  with  'Ain  Hudherah,  one  day's  journey  from  Probabmty  ot 
the  place  identified  as  Kibroth-hattaavah.  The  subse-  identifying  the 
quent  stations,  for  the  most  part,  have  not  yet  been  iden-  ° 
tified.  "As  the  piece  of  country,"  says  Professor  Palmer,  "  north 
east  of  'Ain  Hudherah  and  south-west  of  the  'Azazimeh  mountains 
did  not  fall  within  our  line  of  march,  I  cannot  speak  with  certainty 
as  to  the  identification  of  individual  stations ;  but  I  have  no  doubt 
whatever  as  to  the  general  direction  of  the  Israelites'  journey,  and 
believe  that  all,  or  at  least  a  great  portion,  of  the  unidentified  names 
may  be  recovered  in  that  district.  Among  them  we  notice  Rissah, 
Haradah,  Tahath,  which  correspond  in  etymology  with  Rasa, ' Arabeh, 
and  Elt'hi.  .  .  .  Heshmonah,  again,  is  undoubtedly  identical  with 
Heshmon."  2  Ezion-geber  was  at  the  head  of  the  Elanitic  gulf.  The 
wilderness  of  Zin,  Palmer  locates  in  the  south-east  corner  of  the 
desert  Et  Tih ;  Kadesh  he  identifies  with  'Ain  Gadis ;  and  thinks  that 
the  name  was  applied  to  the  whole  adjacent  region. 

In  Numbers  xxii-xxiv  we  have  an  account  of  Balaam  and  Balak, 
and  their  sacrifices  to  procure  a  curse  upon  Israel,  in  Topography  of 
which  there  is  shown  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  to-  ^ven in°the8tl>. 
pography  of  the  land  of  Moab.  On  this  narrative  Dr.  ry  of  Balaam. 
Tristram  remarks  :  "  Balak  met  the  prophet  at  the  banks  of  the  Arnon, 
the  frontier  of  his  kingdom  (Num.  xxii,  36).  He  then  takes  him  to 
Kirjath-huzoth,  *  the  city  of  streets  '  (ver.  39),  probably  Kiriathaim, 
and  its  high  place,  the  top  of  Attarus,  with  its  commanding  prospect. 
This  is  the  first  conspicuous  eminence  north  of  the  Arnon.  Then, 
proceeding  northward,  the  next  day  he  brings  him  on  to  the  high 
places  of  Baal  (ver.  41),  or  Bamoth  Baal — probably  Baal-meon,  evi 
dently,  from  its  name,  sacred  to  Baal,  which  was  changed  by  the 
Rcubenites  into  Beth-meon  (Num.  xxvii,  38).  This  was  the  second 
'Desert  of  the  Exodus,  pp.  212,  213.  'Ibid.,  p.  419. 


248  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

position  whence  he  had  a  commanding  view  of  the  future  country 
of  Israel.  Afterward  they  proceeded  to  Pisgah,  or  Nebo  (chap, 
xxiii,  14) ;  and,  finally,  to  the  top  of  Peor,  facing  Jeshimon — /.  e.,  the 
ridge  north  of  Nebo  and  due  west  of  Heshbon — where  there  is  a 
group  of  ruins.  Thus,  with  every  reasonable  probability,  we  have  the 
identification  of  the  four  sacrificial  stations  of  Balak  and  Balaam."  ' 

Without  giving  any  more  particulars,  we  may  remark  that  the 
Topography  of  Pentateuch  displays  an  accuracy  of  topography  which 
the  Pentateuch  could  have  been  obtained  only  from  a.  personal  acquaint 
ance  on  the  part  of  the  historian  with  the  regions  of 
the  Exodus — such  an  acquaintance  as  the  Hebrew  lawgiver  pos 
sessed.  In  the  ages  subsequent  to  Moses,  who  among  the  Israelites 
was  intimately  acquainted  with  all  the  localities  of  the  Arabian 
peninsula  from  the  north  end  of  the  Red  Sea  to  the  mountains 
of  Moab?  Does  not  the  topographical  exactness  of  the  Anabasis 
establish  it  as  an  accurate  historical  work,  and  prove  that  its  author 
must  have  accompanied  the  expedition  of  the  younger  Cyrus?  Cer 
tainly  the  geographical  knowledge  displayed  in  the  exodus  of  the 
Israelites  shows  that  it  is  veritable  history. 

Near  the  close  of  the  wandering  of  the  Israelites,  while  they  dwelt 
Someof Bishop  in  the  land  of  Shittim,  we  find  that  "the  people  began 
jeSoiS8  co£  to  commit  whoredom  with  the  daughters  of  Moab.  And 
sidered.  they  called  the  people  unto  the  sacrifices  of  their  gods : 

and  the  people  did  eat,  and  bowed  down  to  their  gods  "  (Num.  xxv, 
i,  2).  On  account  of  these  crimes  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kin 
dled  against  Israel,  followed  by  a  plague  in  which  twenty-four  thousand 
perished,  and  the  order  was  given  to  the  judges  to  slay  all  the  men 
who  were  joined  to  Baal-peor.  As  a  punishment  for  the  seduction 
of  Israel,  Jehovah  commanded  Moses  to  take  vengeance  on  the 
Midianites.  He  accordingly  warred  on  the  Midianites,  and  slew  all 
their  males,  and  at  the  command  of  Moses  all  the  women  that  had 
a  carnal  knowledge  of  men,  and  also  the  male  children.  This  was 
undoubtedly  a  severe  sentence.3  The  Midianites,  however,  were 
not  exterminated,  as  they  became  powerful  enough  afterward  to 
greatly  afflict  the  Israelites.  The  victory  over  the  Midianites  was 
gained  without  the  loss  of  a  single  man  among  the  Israelites  (Num. 
xxxi,  49),  evidently  through  the  providence  of  God,  though  Tacitus 
speaks  of  the  capture,  by  the  Romans,  of  a  fortified  position  in  Ar 
menia  in  which  all  the  men  were  slain,  while  the  Romans  lost  not  a 
single  man,  and  had  very  few  wounded.8  Strabo  also  informs  us 

1  Land  of  Moab,  pp.  318,  319. 

8  This  belongs  to  the  general  subject  of  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,  which 
will  be  hereafter  coi.sidered.  "Annals,  xiii,  39. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  219 

that  in  an  invasion  of  Arabia  by  the  Romans,  in  a  pitched  battle, 
the  latter  slew  about  ten  thousand  Arabs,  while  they  themselves 
lost  but  two  men.  He  attributes  the  great  disparity  in  loss  to  the 
unskillful  use  of  arms  on  the  part  of  the  Arabs.1  Had  Colenso 
known  these  historical  facts  he  could  scarcely  have  said  that  the 
biblical  statement,  that  not  a  man  was  lost  in  the  conflict  with  the 
Midianites,  is  "in  utter  defiance  of  reason  and  common  sense,"* 
even  on  his  theory  that  no  divine  protection  was  afforded  the  Israel 
ites.  He  calculates,  from  the  number  of  captured  virgins,  that  the 
Israelites  must  have  slain  in  battle  eighty-eight  thousand  warriors 
— a  most  unsafe  estimate,  as  it  is  most  likely  many  of  the  Midianite 
men  escaped  while  the  women  were  captured. 

Colenso  has  raised  several  questions  respecting  this  history  which 
we  have  not  yet  touched.  In  Exodus  xvi,  16,  in  re-  other  objec_ 
gard  to  the  gathering  of  the  manna,  it  is  commanded,  tions  made  by 
"Take  ye  every  man  for  them  which  are  in  his  tents."  c 
From  this  he  infers  that  the  historian  teaches  that  the  Israelites 
in  the  deserts  had  tents,  and  he  calculates  that  two  hundred  thou 
sand  tents  wor.ld  have  been  required  to  accommodate  them ;  but 
he  is  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  where  the  Israelites  could  have 
obtained  the  tents,  or  how  they  could  have  transported  them. 
The  statement  that  the  Israelites  dwelt  in  booths  he  rejects  as 
untrue.  The  feast  of  tabernacles,  or  of  booths,  is  enjoined  in  Levit 
icus  xxiii,  and  it  is  stated,  "  That  your  generations  may  know  that  I 
made  the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths,  when  I  brought  them 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  "  (Lev.  xxiii,  43).  It  is  also  enjoined  in 
Deut.  xvi,  13,  and  is  referred  to  in  Zech.  xiv,  16;  Neh.  viii,  14-17. 

But  the  expression,  "  Take  ye  every  man  for  them  which  are  in 
his  tent"  (Exod.  xvi,  16),  does  not  prove  that  the  children  of  Israel 
generally  had  tents,  for  the  Hebrew  word  Snx,  rendered  tent,  also 
means  dwelling,  habitation,  people,  race,  family  (see  Gesenius  and 
Fiirst) ;  so  the  passage  means  that  the  manna  was  to  be  taken  to  the 
dwelling  of  each,  whether  a  tent  or  a  booth.  The  children  of  Israel 
may  have  brought  a  considerable  number  of  tents  with  them  from 
Egypt,  or  have  made  them  soon  afterward.  As  they  were  a  pastoral 
people,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  were  destitute  of  tents. 

Colenso  finds  great  difficulty  in  the  statement  that  "  Jehovah 
spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  .  .  .  gather  thou  all  the  congregation 
together  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  And 
Moses  did  as  Jehovah  commanded  him  ;  and  the  assembly  was 
gathered  together  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega 
tion  "  (Lev.  viii,  1-4). 

'Lib.  xvi,  781,  782.  'Lecture  xvi,  218. 


250  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Here  Moses  is  ordered  to  collect  the  whole  assembly  of  Israel  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  to  be  present  at  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons.  It  was  proper  to  extend  this 
invitation  or  command  to  the  whole  assembly,  though  it  seems  there 
was  no  penalty  for  not  complying  with  it,  and  most  Iike4y  it  was  not 
expected  that  all,  or  even  one  fourth  part,  would  appear.  Nor  is 
it  said  that  the  whole  congregation  did  so  appear,  but  simply  that 
the  assembly  was  collected  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  con 
gregation.  The  command  or  invitation  was  to  be  carried  out  as  far 
as  possible.  How  often  do  we  find  in  our  day  notices  of  important 
meetings  to  be  held  in  a  church  which  will  scarcely  accommodate 
a  thousand  persons,  where  the  public,  consisting  of  many  tens  of 
thousands,  are  invited  to  attend.  The  apostles  were  commanded 
by  our  Saviour  to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature,  which  was  absolutely  impossible,  for  they  could  not 
reach  the  one  hundredth  part  of  mankind.  They  were  to  execute 
the  command  as  far  as  possible. 

It  is  stated  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (i,  33),  "  all  the  city  was  gath- 
Paraiiei  ex-  ered  together  at  the  door."  But  how  was  this  possible? 
fbTgSpeJalld  In  the  ^ospel  of  Matthew  it  is  said  that  there  went  out 
Demosthenes,  to  John  the  Baptist  '*  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all 
the  region  round  about  Jordan."  But,  notwithstanding  this  language, 
it  is  not  probable  that  one  tenth  of  the  people  really  went  out  to  John. 
The  effect  produced  by  our  Saviour's  raising  Lazarus  from  the  dead 
called  forth  the  remark  of  the  Pharisees  :  "  Behold,  the  world  is 
gone  after  him  "  (John  xii,  19).  Now,  to  say  nothing  about  the 
meaning  "universe,"  which  icoafiog  had  among  the  Greek  philoso 
phers,  how  few,  comparatively,  among  men  had  gone  after  Christ ! 
But  take  a  single  example  from  a  profane  author.  Demosthenes,1 
speaking  of  the  times  of  Philip  of  Macedon,  remarks :  "  The  whole 
world  (ndaa  T\  olKovjj,evr])  was  full  of  traitors,"  meaning  the  principal 
portions  of  Greece  only. 

So  much  for  the  absurdity  which  Colenso  finds  in  the  statements 
of  the  Pentateuch  respecting  the  assembling  of  the  congregation  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle. 

In  Deut.  i,  i,  it  is  stated:  "These  are  the  words  which  Moses 
spake  unto  all  Israel ;  "  and  in  ch.  v,  i,  "  And  Moses  called  all  Israel, 
and  said  unto  them."  Here  Colenso  finds  an  absurdity,  in  suppos 
ing  that  the  voice  of  Moses  could  reach  all  Israel ;  and  we  confess 
that  if  the  statement  had  been  that  it  reached  every  one  of  the  chil 
dren  of  Israel — so  numerous  were  they — the  declaration  would  have 
been  incredible  without  supposing  a  miracle.  What  Moses  said 
1  De  Corona,  sec.  48. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  251 

was  addressed  h  all  Israel,  whether  they  could  hear  him  or  not,  and 
those  who  coul-J  not  hear  could  easily  learn  from  others  who  did  ; 
and  Moses  wrote  it  down  for  all. 

In  the  command  given  to  the  priest  respecting  the  burning  of 
the  sacrifice  without  the  camp,  Colenso  finds  another  The  command 
absurdity:  "Even  the  whole  bullock  shall  he  [the  ^Twith! 
priest]  carry  forth  without  the  camp  unto  a  clean  place,  out  the  camp. 
where  the  ashes  are  poured  out,  and  bui  i  \im  on  the  wood  with 
fire  "  (Lev.  iv,  12).  Judging  from  the  size  of  the  camp,  Colenso  in 
fers  that  "  the  offal  of  these  sacrifices  would  have  had  to  be  carried 
by  Aaron  himself,  or  one  of  his  sons,  a  distance  of  six  miles." 
There  is  no  need  to  suppose,  as  he  does,  that  the  priest  had  to  carry 
the  offal  on  his  back,  or  that  he  carried  it  at  all.  The  Hebrew 
word  X'Xl'ni  means  he  (the  priest)  shall  send  forth,  or  cause  to  go 
forth.  We  have  no  good  reason  for  supposing  either  that  the  priest 
himself  carried  out  the  offal,  or  that  it  had  to  be  carried  six  miles. 
We  do  not  know  how  far  the  tabernacle  was  pitched  from  the  border 
of  the  camp. 

Equally  absurd  —  rather  more  so  —  are  the  remarks  of  Colenso  re 
specting  the  distance  to  which  the  Israelites  would  have  been  com 
pelled  to  go  to  attend  to  the  necessities  of  nature  (Deut.  xxiii, 
12-14),  f°r  tne  camp  to  which  reference  is  here  made  was  but  a  part 
of  the  host  of  Israel.  For  it  is  said  when  the  host,  runa,  a  single 
camp  (not  all  the  hosts,  camps],  goes  forth.  The  whole  regulation 
has  reference  to  the  Israelites  when  they  shall  have  entered  the  land 
of  Canaan  ;  and  we  find  a  full  account  of  the  rules  of  war  in  Deut. 
xx,  which  no  one  can  read  without  seeing  that  it  refers  to  the  Israel 
ites  when  they  shall  have  settled  in  that  land. 

There  is  one  peculiarity  of  Colenso  which  must  be  noticed. 
Whenever  any  subject  admits  of  different  views  or  explanations,  the 
one  which  creates  a  difficulty  or  absurdity  is  almost  invariably 
adopted  by  him.  No  other  document  of  either  the  ancient  or 
modern  world  would  be  treated  in  the  same  way. 

If  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  Moses,  or  even  by  one  of  his 
contemporaries,  the  truth  of  the  history  in  the  last  four  Theoplnlono£ 
books  follows  as  a  natural  consequence;  and  this  con-  DeWetteasto 
sideration  furnishes  a  ground  of  objection  to  its  being 


contemporary  history  in  the  eyes  of  those  whose  philo-   Pentateuch 
.     .          -          ,  .  ITT  considered. 

sophic  system  admits  of  nothing  supernatural.     Hence 

De  Wette  remarks  :  "  If  it  is  at  least  doubtful  to  the  thinking  intel 
lect  that  such  miracles  really  occurred,  the  question  arises  whether 
they  did  not  so  appear  to  the  eye-witnesses  and  participants  of  the 
history,  or  were  supposed  by  the  reporters  to  have  occurred  in  a 


252  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

natural  way,  but  set  forth  in  a  poetic-miraculous  light  ?  But  this 
must  be  denied  as  soon  as  the  narratives  are  carefully  considered. 
For  there  is  wholly  wanting  in  them  that  credulous,  poetic  frame  of 
mind  which  would  contain  the  key  to  the  miraculous."1  He  fur 
ther  observes :  "  It  would  be  rash  to  conclude  that  these  narratives 
of  miracles  were  absolute  inventions.  There  lies  at  the  bottom  of 
them  a  genuine  historical  tradition,  which,  united  to  certain  signs, 
and  borne  in  the  songs  of  the  people,  was  transmitted  orally.  An 
ideal  poetical  element  blends  itself  with  the  real  historical  in  the 
traditions  of  the  people,  by  which  the  tradition  is  gradually  trans 
formed  into  the  miraculous  and  the  ideal.  To  effect  this  the  songs 
of  the  people  especially  contribute,  which,  in  the  bold  lyric  flight  of 
the  imagination,  represent  in  a  supernatural  light  that  which  was 
naturally  worthy  of  astonishment  and  wonder,  and  these  representa 
tions  are  easily  misunderstood  by  a  people  believing  in  miracles."' 
If  this  statement  of  De  Wette  were  correct,  it  would  be  strange  that  the 
Mosaic  history,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  songs,  is  uniformly  prose. 
If  it  had  been  preserved  as  poetry,  why  should  it  not  have  been  writ 
ten  down  as  such,  and  so  continued,  like  the  historical  Psalms  ?  8  But 
the  largest  portion  of  the  Mosaic  history  could,  from  its  very  nature, 
never  have  had  a  poetic  form.  If  poetry  had  exaggerated  the  orig 
inal  natural  history,  it  is  singular  that  an  historian  should  have  been 
so  ignorant  of  poetic  usage  and  license  as  to  take  its  exaggerations 
for  sober  fact. 

A  great  portion  of  the  miraculous  history  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
sober  truth  or  it  is  deliberate  falsehood.  Of  this  character  are  the 
plagues  of  Egypt,  especially  the  death  of  the  firstborn  of  the  Egyp 
tians,  which  are  real  history  and  supernatural,  or  they  are  fiction. 

Colenso,  in  his  view  of  miracles,  goes  beyond  even  De  Wette. 
coienso'«  gen-  "The  order,"  says  he,  "of  this  wondrous  universe,  so 
erai  objection  manifold,  so  diverse,  yet  all  tending  to  unity,  to  one 

to  the  miracles  ...  J 

of  the  Penta-   great  central  Cause,  a  miracle,  if  really  witnessed,  would 

be  like  a  jarring  discord  in  the  midst  of  a  mighty  music 
~ not  a  sign  of  the  master-musician's  presence,  but  a  token  that  for 
once  he  had  failed  to  subdue  the  rebellious  elements — would,  in 
short,  be  simply  frightful. "*  What  shall  we  say  to  a  miracle's  being 
"  a  jarring  discord  in  the  midst  of  a  mighty  music  ?  "  Is  this  world 
nothing  but  harmonious  music  ?  What  shall  we  say  of  earthquakes 
burying  whole  cities  with  thousands  of  human  beings ;  of  inundations 
laying  waste  vast  tracts,  and  destroying  human  life  ;  of  famines,  pes- 

1  Schrader's  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  p.  257. 

"Ibid.,  pp.  258,  259.         'Psalm  Ixxviii,  for  example. 

4  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,  etc.,  p.  369.     London,  1873. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  253 

tilences,  tornadoes,  sweeping  away  houses,  and  sending  ships  with 
their  precious  freight  beneath  the  waves  of  the  deep  ?  Is  all  this 
music  in  the  ears  and  harmony  to  the  eyes  of  Colenso  ?  To  these 
discordant  and  destructive  forces  add  the  passions  of  men,  exhib 
ited  in  horrible  wars  and  devastations.  In  the  midst  of  such  a 
world  as  this,  is  an  extraordinary  display  of  omnipotent  power  in 
punishing  the  wicked  and  delivering  the  good — the  manifestation 
of  the  divine  power  and  Godhead,  the  revelation  of  Jehovah  to 
man,  a  great  light  in  the  midst  of  moral  darkness — is  all  this  noth 
ing  but  a  jarring  discord  ?  In  the  midst  of  the  wrongs  and  the 
darkness  of  the  world,  who  has  not  felt  as  did  Isaiah,  and  prayed, 
"  Oh  that  thou  wouldest  rend  the  heavens,  that  thou  wouldest  come 
down  ?  " 

Colenso  seems  to  have  but  little  faith  in  the  miracles  of  Christ, 
"whose  doings,  however,"  says  he,  "we  now  see  but  indistinctly 
through  the  mists  of  those  many  years  which  had  elapsed  between 
the  time  when  Jesus  lived  on  earth  and  the  time  when  those  narra 
tives  were  written." '  In  this  course  he  is  consistent,  for  a  rejection 
of  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  divine  authority  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
must  necessarily  lead  to  the  rejection  of  the  authority  of  the  Gos 
pels — though  Colenso  professes  to  believe  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour 
of  men.  If  the  Christian  religion  was  founded  in  miracles  (and 
Christ  was  the  greatest  of  all  miracles),  is  it  not  reasonable  to  sup 
pose  that  Judaism,  its  foundation,  was  also  established  by  miracles  ? 

The  only  way  in  which  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible  can,  with  any 
show  of  reason,  be  rejected,  is  by  ignoring  a  personal  Miracles  not  in- 
God  in  nature,  and  reducing  the  whole  universe  to  a  the^mjauon 
system  of  blind  forces.  If  God  has  acted  in  creation,  of  a  religion, 
if  man  is  his  workmanship,  revelation  and  redemption  are  highly 
credible.  In  fact,  creation  is  a  miracle ;  life  is  a  perpetual  miracle. 
Struggle  as  we  may,  we  can  never  get  rid  of  the  supernatural,  with 
out  a  belief  in  which  all  religion  is  impossible.3  If  there  is  anywhere 
in  the  Bible  a  single  prophecy,  or  a  single  miracle,  then  the  chain  of 
purely  natural  causes  is  at  once  broken,  and  the  whole  series  of  bib 
lical  prophecies  and  miracles  becomes  credible.  The  history  of 
aerolites  furnishes  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  danger  of  rejecting 

1  Lectures  en  the  Pentateuch,  p.  376.     1873. 

8  John  Stuart  Mill  takes  decided  ground  against  H&ne's  famous  argument  upon 
miracles:  "All,  therefore,  which  Hume  has  made  out — and  this  he  must  be  con 
sidered  to  have  made  out — is,  that  no  evidence  can  be  sufficient  to  prove  a  miracle 
to  any  one  who  did  not  previously  believe  the  existence  of  a  being  or  beings  with 
supernatural  power,  or  who  believed  himself  to  have  full  proof  that  the  character 
of  the  Being  whom  he  recognizes  is  inconsistent  with  his  having  seen  fit  to  interfere 
on  the  occasion  in  question." — Logic,  p.  376. 


254  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE    STUDY 

well-authenticated  facts  merely  because  they  do  not  coincide  with 
our  own  experience.  Writers  in  all  ages  had  mentioned  instances 
of  the  fall  of  meteoric  stones  from  the  heavens,  but  down  till  the  be 
ginning  of  this  century  all  these  accounts  were  treated  as  fables,  as 
the  tales  of  the  ignorant  and  the  superstitious.1  An  a  priori  judg 
ment  that  stones  do  not  fall  upon  the  earth  misled  the  whole  scien 
tific  world  till  a  shower  of  stones  fell  at  L'Aigle,  in  Normandy,  in 
1803.  It  was  not  testimony  that  misled  the  scientists,  but  a  preju 
dice  against  the  facts  to  which  testimony  was  given.  And  may  not  the 
whole  rationalistic  world  be  similarly  deceived  in  the  rejection  of 
the  miracles  of  the  Bible  ? 

In  the  case  of  the  aerolites  2  one  difficulty — rather  the  principal 
difficulty — was  to  explain  how  they  originated.  To  explain  the 
biblical  miracles  we  have  an  adequate  cause  in  the  Deity,  and  a 
sufficient  reason  for  their  performance  in  the  fact  that  they  were  to 
reveal  the  character  and  will  of  Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  abounding 
idolatry. 

The  history  in  the  Pentateuch  shows  the  most  intimate  acquaint- 

,  ance  on  the  part  of  the  writer  with  the  events  related. 
The  author  of  .  .  . 

the  Pentateuch   Numerous   particulars  are  given,  which,  had  they  not 

mate  ^knowil  been  recorded  at  the  time,  must  have  faded  away  in  the 
edge  of  events  lapse  of  ages.  Objects  seen  at  a  distance  present  them 
selves  to  us  only  in  great  outline.  Nowhere  does  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  appear  to  write  from  conjecture,  or  to  be 
feeling  his  way  in  the  dark,  or  to  narrate  from  the  report  of  others. 
He  *  everywhere  shows  himself  the  master  of  his  materials.  How 
different  it  is  with  the  great  writers  of  the  early  Roman  history  in  the 
Augustan  age  !  Livy,  in  his  Introduction,  recognizes  the  fact  that 
the  early  history  of  Rome  is  embellished  with  fable.  Nor  does 
he  proceed  far  in  his  narrative  before  he  says  of  a  certain  event, 
"There  are  two  different  accounts  respecting  this."  So  in  reference 
to  Romulus  and  Remus,  he  says,  "  There  is  a  report."  And  when 
he  speaks  of  the  oath  which  Hannibal  when  a  boy  took  to  cherish 
hostility  to  Rome,  he  says,  such  is  "the  report." 

When  the  Greek  historian,  Herodotus,  is  relating  the  history  of 
Cyrus  the  Great,  he  remarks  that  he  could  give  three  other  accounts 

1 "  That  arrogant  spirit  of  incredulity  which  rejects  facts  without  attempting  to  in 
vestigate  them,  is  in  some  cases  almost  more  injurious  than  an  unquestioning  cre 
dulity." — Humboldt's  Cosmos,  vol.  i,  p.  123. 

2  How  easy  it  would  be  to  disprove  the  reality  of  aerolites  on  Hume's  principles  » 
We  [the  great  mass  of  men]  have  never  seen  stones  fall  from  heaven,  but  we  have 
known  men  to  lie. 

"Blunt,  in  his  Scriptural  Coincidences,  gives  a  considerable  number  of  undesigned 
coincidences  in  the  Pentateuch,  establishing  the  truth  of  the  history. 


OF    THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  255 

of  him.1  How  unlike  is  the  language  of  the  author  of  the  Penta 
teuch  !  There  is  the  air  of  reality  and  naturalness  in  the  books 
of  Moses,  which  impresses  the  reader  with  the  feeling  that  he  is 
reading  genuine  history. 


CHAPTER   XXIX 

THE    COMMAND    TO    EXTERMINATE    THE   CANAANITES,  AND 
THE  GENERAL  SEVERITY  OF  THE   MOSAIC  SYSTEM. 

"the  cities  of  these  people,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  doth 
give  thee  for  an  inheritance,  thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing 
that  breatheth  :  but  thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  them  ;  namely,  the 
Hittites,  and  the  Amorites,  the  Canaanites,  and  the  Perizzites,  the 
Hivites,  and  the  Jebusites ;  as  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  commanded 
thee :  that  they  teach  you  not  to  do  after  all  their  abominations, 
which  they  have  done  unto  their  gods ;  so  should  ye  sin  against  the 
Lord  your  God"  (Deut.  xx,  16-18).  Similar  commands  are  found 
in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Now  it  must  be  observed  that  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  Ca 
naanites  were  to  be  exterminated  on  account  of  their  A  (jlvlne  ^.^j. 
wickedness.  In  Lev.  xviii,  after  enumerating  various  only  could  jus- 
abominable  things  to  be  avoided,  it  is  added :  "  For  all  mination^ne 
these  abominations  have  the  men  of  the  land  done,  which  Canaanites. 
were  before  you,  and  the  land  is  defiled ;  that  the  land  spew  not 
you  out  also,  when  ye  defile  it,  as  it  spewed  out  the  nations  that 
were  before  you."  "  Speak  not  thou  in  thine  heart,  after  that  the 
Lord  thy  God  hath  cast  them  out  from  before  thee,  saying,  For 
my  righteousness  the  Lord  hath  brought  me  in  to  possess  this  land : 
but,  for  the  wickedness  of  these  nations  the  Lord  doth  drive  them 
out  from  before  thee.  Not  for  thy  righteousness,  or  for  the  upright 
ness  of  thine  heart,  dost  thou  go  to  possess  their  land :  but  for  the 
wickedness  of  these  nations  the  Lord  thy  God  doth  drive  them  out 
from  before  thee"  (Deut.  ix,  4,  5).  In  accordance  with  these  dec 
larations,  it  is  said  (in  Gen.  xv,  16)  to  Abraham,  "The  iniquity 
of  the  Amorites  is  not  yet  full." 

The  children  of  Israel  were  warned  that  if  they  practised  the 
abominations  of  the  Canaanites  the  land  would  vomit  them  forth 
also,  so  that  they  had  before  them  perpetually  the  proof  of  Jeho 
vah's  hatred  of  sin  in  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,  and  an 
example  of  what  might  be  expected  to  overtake  themselves  if  they 

•  Liber  i,  95. 


230  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

forsook  Jehovah  and  abandoned  themselves  to  vice  an>1  crime. 
That  the  Almighty  should  send  a  plague  upon  a  wicked  city,  and 
Theact,inadi-  destroy  every  living  being  in  it,  the  old  man  with  the 
the6 Important  infant»  involving  all  in  one  common  ruin,  would  excite 
point.  no  surprise.  If  a  city  or  large  community  were  sunk 

by  an  earthquake  on  account  of  the  crimes  of  its  people,  no  one 
would  think  that  the  destruction  of  the  infants  with  their  wicked 
parents  was  inconsistent  with  the  moral  attributes  of  God.  But, 
instead  of  the  pestilence  or  earthquake,  suppose  we  substitute  an 
angel  from  heaven,  there  would  still  be  no  objection  to  the  divine 
goodness  or  justice  on  that  score.  Can  we  not  substitute  men  in 
stead  of  an  angel  to  accomplish  the  same  work  ?  The  great  point  is, 
the  act,  not  the  agent. 

In  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  the  weakness  and  vanity 
of  their  gods  were  clearly  seen,  and  thus  a  powerful  blow  was  given 
to  the  whole  system  of  idolatry. 

Nothing  but  a  divine  command  could  authorize  the  Israelites  to 
Not  unusual  take  possession  of  the  lands  of  the  Canaanites,  and  to 
cent^to  suffer  destroy  tne  inhabitants.  Without  this  it  would  have 
with  the  guilty,  been  robbery  and  murder.  God  alone  has  the  right  to 
dispose  of  the  lands  and  lives  of  nations.  The  destruction  of  the 
ancient  world  by  water,  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the 
destruction  of  Korah  and  his  company,  with  the  women  and  chil 
dren,  by  the  earth's  opening  her  mouth  and  swallowing  them  up 
on  account  of  the  rebellion  against  Moses,  are  examples  of  guilt 
and  punishment  involving  innocent  children  with  guilty  parents  in 
ruin. 

But  if  we  banish  these  examples  to  the  region  of  the  mythical 
nothing  is  gained.  For  with  our  own  eyes  we  see  innocent  children 
suffer  on  account  of  the  crimes  and  vices  of  their  parents ;  we  be 
hold  earthquakes  and  inundations,  famine  and  pestilence,  destroying 
the  good  and  the  bad,  the  gray-headed  sinner  and  the  unsinning  little 
one.  All  this  occurs  in  a  world  that  God  has  constituted,  the  laws 
of  which  he  has  established,  the  consequences  of  which  laws  he 
must  have  foreseen.  They  are  the  divine  acts.  "Shall  there  be  evil 
in  a  city,  and  the  Lord  hath  not  done  it?  "  (Amos  iii,  6).  Far  rnoie 
difficult  is  it  to  reconcile  with  the  divine  goodness  the  swallowing 
up  of  whole  towns  by  an  earthquake  than  the  extermination  of  the 
Canaanites.  The  latter  were  cut  off  for  their  abominable  vices 
and  crimes,  while  cities  have  been  buried  by  earthquakes  without 
our  perceiving  that  the  inhabitants  were  worse  than  those  of  cities 
exempt  from  such  visitations. 

In  the  affairs  of  this  world  Providence  often  employs  one  nation 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  257 

as  the  means  of  punishing  another.     The  Jews  them-  g^  U3e3  one 

selves  were  frequently  punished  for  their  sins  by  means   nation  as  his 

..  ,         ,  .  _,          ,  ...  IT,      instrument    to 

of  heathen  nations.     But  the  most  striking  and  dread-   punish    other 

ful  example  of  this  kind  occurred  in  the  destruction  of  nations- 
Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  A.  D.  70,  and  its  utter  demolition. 
Thousands  upon  thousands  fell  by  the  pestilence,  famine,  and  the 
sword  ;  the  old  man  and  the  infant  perished  alike  in  the  general 
overthrow.  No  man  can  read  the  Bible  with  any  faith  in  its  teach 
ings,  and  deny  that  this  terrible  calamity  overtook  the  Jews  on  ac 
count  of  their  great  sins,  especially  their  rejection  of  the  Son  of  God. 
Thus,  while  the  Israelites  were  the  punishers  of  the  Canaanites,  they, 
in  turn,  were  punished  for  their  dreadful  crimes  by  the  Romans,  the 
executors  of  the  divine  decree. 

The  existence  of  evil,  with  its  consequent  woes,  is  a  mystery  which 
no  finite  mind  can  solve;  how  to  reconcile  its  existence  with  the  at 
tributes  of  a  Being  infinitely  wise  and  good  has  been  the  problem 
of  the  ages.  The  rejection  of  revelation  affords  no  relief,  nor  does 
Atheism  itself. 

But  not  only  towards  the  Canaanites  is  severity  shown  in  the  Pen 

tateuch,  but  also  towards  disobedient  Israelites.     As  the 

.An  even-hand- 
temptation  to  idolatry  was  very  strong,  and  as  it  struck   ed       seventy 


at  the  very  foundation  of  true  religion,  being  nothing 
less  than  treason  against  God,  it  was  punished  with  and  Canaan- 
death.  We  have  already  seen  that  Korah  and  hrs  com-  ltes* 
pany,  for  their  rebellion  against  Moses,  were  swallowed  up  by  the 
earth  ;  and  nowhere  is  any  leniency  shown  towards  transgressors. 
But  it  must  be  observed  that  in  that  age  of  the  world  severe  penal 
ties  were  more  necessary  than  now  to  restrain  men  from  crime, 
especially  from  idolatry.  The  laws  of  Draco  were  written  in  blood, 
and  so  were  those  of  the  twelve  tables  at.  Rome.  In  proportion  as 
nations  becomj  civilized,  cultivated,  and  virtuous,  they  mitigate  the 
severity  of  their  penal  codes.  The  Mosaic  system  was  not  perfect, 
but  was  adapted  to  the  condition  of  the  Israelites  in  T^ejfoga^g 
Palestine  in  that  period  of  the  world's  history.  Some  tem  adapted  to 
evils  were  tolerated  because  they  were  so  deeply  inter 
woven  in  the  fabric  of  ancient  society  that  their  immediate  eradica 
tion  would  have  been  impossible.  Some  of  the  Mosaic  laws  were 
mitigations  of  existing  evils.  Respecting  the  Mosaic  law  of  di 
vorce,  our  Saviour  said  to  the  Jews  :  "  Moses,  because  of  the  hard 
ness  of  your  hearts  suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives  ;  but  from 
the  beginning  it  was  not  so."  '  What  Solon  said  of  the  code  he  had 
given  Athens  is  applicable  to  the  Mosaic  system,  that  it  was  not 

1  Matt,  xix,  8. 
VOL.  I.—  17 


258  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

the  best  possible  system,  but  the  best  the  people  were  capable  of  re 
ceiving.  To  the  same  point  is  a  remark  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  that  if  a 
legislator  cannot  do  all  the  good  he  could  wish,  he  must  do  what 
he  can.  But  in  fundamental  principles  there  was  no  compromise  in 
the  Mosaic  system. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  severity  of  the  penal  code  of  Moses, 
kindness  to  the  poor  and  to  strangers  characterize  his  legislation  in 
a  remarkable  degree. 

"  There  is  a  comparative  purity  in  the  theology  and  morality  of 
the  Pentateuch,  which  argues  not  only  its  truth  but  its  high  original ; 
for  how  else  are  we  to  account  for  a  system  like  that  of  Moses  in 
such  an  age  and  among  such  a  people  ?  how  explain  the  fact  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  unity,  the  self-existence,  the  providence,  the  perfec 
tions,  of  the  great  God  of  heaven  and  earth  should  thus  have  blazed 
forth  (how  far  more  brightly  than  even  in  the  vaunted  schools  of 
Athens  at  its  most  refined  era !)  from  the  midst  of  a  nation  ever 
plunging  into  gross  and  grovelling  idolatry ;  and  that  principles  of 
social  duty,  of  benevolence,  and  of  self-restraint,  extending  even  to 
the  thoughts  of  the  heart,  should  have  been  the  produce  of  an  age 
which  the  very  provisions  of  the  Levitical  law  itself  show  to  have 
been  full  of  savage  and  licentious  abominations  ?  " 


CHAPTER   XXX. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  APOSTLES  TO   THE  GENU 
INENESS  OF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 


Saviour  and  his  apostles  everywhere  assume  the  Mosaic 
authorship  and  the  divine  authority  of  the  Pentateuch.  Our 
Saviour,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Jews,  says  :  "  For  had  you  be 
lieved  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me  :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But 
if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words  ?  " 
How  absurd  this  language  would  be,  on  the  theory  that  the  Penta 
teuch  was  written  ages  after  Moses  !  —  If  you  do  not  believe  in  a 
work  made  up  of  traditions  and  myths  in  a  late  age  and  attributed 
to  Moses,  how  can  ye  believe  in  me  —  and  this  language  from  him 
who  is  the  truth  itself! 

In  various  passages  Christ  speaks  also  of  Moses  as  if  he  was  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  :  "  Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses, 

1  Blunt,  Scriptural  Coincidences,  pp.  104,  105.  "John  v,  46,  47. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  259 

how  in  the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  oi 
Abraham,"  etc.  (Mark  xii,  26).  "  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the 
dead  "  (Luke  x/i,  31).  "These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto 
you  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which 
were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses"  etc.  (Luke  xxiv,  44).  "  Did  not 
Moses  give  you  the  law?"  (John  vii,  19.) 

The  Apostle  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  says:  "For  Moses 
truly  said  unto  the  fathers,  A  Prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise 
up  unto  you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me,"  etc.  (Acts  iii,  22). 

The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  address  to  Agrippa,  observes  in  respect 
to  his  teaching:  "Saying  none  other  things  than  those  which  the 
prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should  come  "  (Acts  xxvi,  22).  And  in 
Acts  xxviii,  23,  St.  Paul  expounded,  "  both  out  of  the  law  of  Moses 
and  out  of  the  prophets."  "For  Moses  describeth  (Greek,  writes) 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  that  the  man  which  doeth 
these  things  shall  live  by  them  "  (Rom.  x,  5).  This  refers  to  Lev. 
xviii,  5,  which  St.  Paul  here  declares  that  Moses  wrote.  "  For  even 
unto  this  day,  when  Moses  is  read,  the  vail  is  upon  their  heart " 
(2  Cor.  iii,  15). 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

THE    EARLIER    PROPHETS. 


TTNDER  this  title  (a'JW*o  D'iOj)  the  second  division  of  the  He- 
^  brew  Bible  embraces  Joshua  (yunrr),  Judges  (D'DDip),  two  Books 
of  Samuel  (SxiD^),  and  two  Books  of  Kings 


THE   BOOK   OF  JOSHUA. 

This  Book,  the  next  after  the  Pentateuch,  is  so  called  from 
Joshua,  the  successor  of  Moses,  and  the  leader  of  the  Israelites  in 
the  conquest  of  Canaan.  It  takes  up  the  thread  of  their  history  at 
the  end  of  Deuteronomy,  and  continues  it  to  the  death  of  Joshua. 
It  may  be  appropriately  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first  division, 
containing  chapters  i-xii,  gives  an  account  of  Joshua's  conducting  of 
the  Israelites  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  of  the  capture  of  Jericho,  Ai, 
the  deception  of  Joshua  by  the  Gibeonites  and  his  league  with  them, 
the  defeat  and  slaughter  of  the  armies  of  the  kings  of  Jerusalem, 
Hebron,  Jarmuth,  Lachish,  and  Eglon,  and  the  capture  and  the  exe 
cution  of  the  kings  themselves,  of  Joshua's  building  an  altar  on  Ebal, 
and  inscribing  on  its  stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses,  the  capture 


360  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   STUDY 

of  Makkedah,  Libnah,  Lachish,  Eglon,  Hebron,  and  Debir,  and  the 
conquest  of  southern  Palestine.  Besides  these  conquests  it  con 
tains  a  description  of  the  defeat  of  the  combined  forces  of  the  various 
nations  of  Palestine  at  the  waters  of  Merom,  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  country.  The  second  divison,  containing  chapters  xiii-xxiv, 
gives  an  account  of  the  lands  that  still  remained  to  be  possessed 
when  Joshua  was  an  old  man,  the  allotments  of  the  different  tribes 
and  the  boundaries  of  their  territories,  the  appointment  of  the  cities 
of  refuge,  and  of  cities  for  the  priests  and  the  other  Levites,  Joshua's 
exhortation  to  the  chiefs  of  the  Israelites,  his  gathering  of  all  the 
tribes  to  Shechem,  his  address  to  them,  and  his  death. 

THE    UNITY   OF   THE   BOOK   OF  JOSHUA. 

From  the  foregoing  statement  of  the  contents  of  the  book  of 
Joshua  it  is  seen  that  there  is  a  connexion,  though  not  always  close, 
between  its  various  portions,  and  that  the  second  division  presupposes 
the  first.  De  Wette  and  others  think  they  find  contradictions  be 
tween  the  first  and  second  parts  of  the  book,  and  between  it  and 
Judges.  But  their  view  is  a  narrow  one,  and  seems  to  have  arisen 
from  a  predisposition  to  make  Joshua,  to  a  great  extent,  mythical. 

In  chap,  xi,  16,  17,  it  is  stated  that  "  Joshua  took  all  that  land, 
Agreement  be-  the  hills,  and  all  the  south  country,  and  all  the  land  of 
amTsecond  cu-  Goshen,  and  the  valley,  and  the  plain,  and  the  mountain 
visions.  Of  Israel,  and  the  valley  of  the  same;  even  from  the 

Bald  Mountain,  that  goeth  up  to  Seir,  even  unto  Baal-gad  in  the  val 
ley  of  Lebanon  under  Mount  Hermon :  and  all  their  kings  he  took, 
and  smote  them,  and  slew  them."  But  in  chap,  xiii,  when  Joshua 
was  old  and  stricken  in  years,  Jehovah  says  unto  him,  "  There  re- 
maineth  yet  very  much  land  to  be  possessed  ...  all  the  borders  of 
the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri,  from  Sihor,  which  is  before  Egypt, 
even  unto  the  borders  of  Ekron  northward,  which  is  counted  to  the 
Canaanite  :  five  lords  of  the  Philistines;  the  Gazathites,  and  the 
Ashdothites,  the  Eshkalonites,  the  Gittites,  and  the  Ekronites;  also 
the  Avites  :  on  the  south,  all  the  land  of  the  Canaanites,  and  Me- 
arah  that  is  beside  the  Sidonians,  unto  Aphek,  to  the  borders  of  the 
Amorites  :  and  the  land  of  the  Giblites,  and  all  Lebanon  toward 
the  sunrising,  from  Baal-gad  under  Mount  Hermon  unto  the  enter 
ing  into  (until  you  come  to)  Hamath.  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  hill 
country  from  Lebanon  unto  Misrephoth-maim,  and  all  the  Sido 
nians  "  (vers.  1-6).  Yet  these  latter  passages  do  not  contradict  the 
former  respecting  the  extent  of  the  conquests  of  Joshua.  The  first 
statement  is  a  general  one,  and  by  no  means  asserts  the  entire  con 
quest  of  the  Philistines  and  most  southern  Canaanites.  nor  does  it 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  261 

contain  any  reference  to  the  subjugation  of  the  most  northern  nations 
of  Palestine,  which  are  named  in  the  second  part  of  Joshua  as 
unsubdued. 

In  the  second  part,  the  land  to  be  possessed  in  the  north  extended 
to  Hamath  on  the  Orontes,  and  Aphek  (between  Byblus  and  Baal- 
bee),  embracing  the  Sidonians  and  the  Byblians  (Giblites),  whose  land 
the  Israelites  never  possessed.  In  this  same  part,  among  the 
Philistines  unsubdued  are  mentioned  Gazathites,  Ashdothites,  and 
Gittites  (Gathites).  Now,  in  the  first  part  we  have  an  indirect  con 
firmatory  proof  of  this  fact  in  chap,  xi,  22,  where  it  is  stated  that  no 
Anakim  were  left  in  the  land  of  Israel  except  in  Gaza,  Gath,  and 
Ashdod — a  clear  proof  that  the  Israelites  had  not  yet  subdued  these 
cities  of  the  Philistines. 

In  the  account  of  the  conquests  of  Joshua  it  is  stated  that  he  took 
and  destroyed  Hebron  and  Debir  (chap,  x,  39);  while  in  other  apparent 
ch.  xv,  13-17  it  is  said  that  Caleb  drove  from  the  former  contradictions 
city  the  sons  of  Anak,  and  that  Othniel  took  the  latter.  r 
But  here  there  is  no  contradiction ;  for  whatever  is  done  by  a  sub 
ordinate  can  be  said  to  have  been  performed  by  the  commander-in- 
chief  himself. 

In  the  list  of  the  kings  whom  Joshua  and  the  Israelites  smote  (chap, 
xii,  9-24)  are  named  the  kings  of  Jerusalem,  Gezer,  Dor,  and  Me- 
giddo — places  which,  it  seems,  had  not  yet  been  taken  (Josh,  xv,  63 ; 
xvi,  10 ;  xvii,  n,  12).  But  the  kings  of  these  towns,  with  the  sur 
rounding  small  towns  and  villages,  could  have  been  killed  and  the 
strongholds  of  the  towns  remained  untaken,  as  we  actually  see  in 
the  case  of  Jerusalem,  respecting  which  it  is  said :  "  The  children 
of  Judah  had  fought  against  Jerusalem,  and  had  taken  it,  and  smit 
ten  it  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  set  the  city  on  fire  "  (Judges 
i,  8) ;  but  this  was  not  the  stronghold  of  Zion,  for  it  is  stated  in 
Josh,  xv,  63,  that  "the  children  of  Judah,"  and  in  Judg.  i,  21,  "the 
children  of  Benjamin,"  did  not,  or  could  not,  drive  out  the  Jebu- 
sites  from  Jerusalem,  "but  they  dwell  there  unto  this  day."  But 
David  drove  them  out  and  took  the  stronghold  (2  Sam.  v,  6,  7). 

As  we  find  five  kings  coming  forth  to  fight  Joshua  (ch.  x,  5),  so  it  is 
not  unlikely  that  the  kings  of  those  cities  not  captured  by  him 
were  slaughtered  outside  of  the  strongholds  of  their  towns  while  de 
fending  their  positions,  which,  excepting  the  strongholds,  fell  wholly 
into  Joshua's  hands  (chap,  xii,  7,  8). 

The  statement  that  Joshua  burnt  Hazor  (ch.  xi,  n)  is  not  incon 
sistent  with  the  fact  that  we  find,  more  than  a  century  afterward, 
Jabin,  king  of  Canaan,  reigning  in  Hazor  (Judg.  iv,  2),  for  there  was 
ample  time  for  the  enemies  of  Israel  to  recover  it  and  to  rebuild  it. 


262  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

In  Judges  i  we  discover  several  events  described  which  are  already 
The  statement  re^ate(i  as  having  occurred  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  viz.  : 
inJudg.  icon-  the  capture  of  Hebron  and  Debir,  with  the  attendant 
circumstances.  But  these  events  related  in  Judges  are 
not  to  be  regarded  as  having  occurred  after  Joshua's  death.  It  is 
true,  it  is  stated  that  after  the  death  of  Joshua  the  Israelites  inquired 
of  Jehovah  who  should  first  go  up  to  fight  against  the  Canaanites 
(ch.  i,  i).  But  after  the  account  of  the  slaughter  of  the  Canaanites 
and  the  Perizzites,  and  the  mutilation  of  Adoni-bezek,  it  is  said, 
"  they  (the  Israelites)  brought  him  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  died  " 
(Judg.  i,  5-7).  This  statement  presupposes  that  Jerusalem  (with 
the  exception  of  the  stronghold  of  Zion)  was  already  in  possession 
of  the  Israelites,  and  it  is  followed  with  an  account  of  its  having 
been  already  taken,  to  which  are  added  other  previous  conquests. 
This  seems  to  us  to  be  the  most  natural  view.  In  Joshua  we  have 
a  full  statement,  while  in  the  first  chapter  of  Judges  we  have  isolated 
events,  the  order  of  which  must  be  determined  by  Joshua.  We  can 
not  regard  Josh,  xiii,  3  as  contradicted  by  xv,  45-47  ;  for  the  former 
passage  speaks  of  cities  still  in  possession  of  the  Philistines,  while  the 
latter  refers  to  some  of  these  cities  as  belonging  to  the  inheritance 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  obtained  by  lot,  but  says  not  a  word  respecting 
their  having  been  already  conquered. 

It  has  been  urged,  in  opposition  to  the  unity  of  Joshua,  that  in  the 
Alleged  differ-  ^rst  twelve  chapters  the  word  DDiy,  shebety  for  tribe,  pre- 

vails'  while  in  the  rest  of  the  bo°Tk  nD»  matteh>  is 


two  divisions  aiiy  use(j  to  express  the  same  thought.  But  ntsro,  matteh, 
of  Joshua  oxm-  *  r  -  * 

sidered.  is  used  in  Josh,  vii,  1  8,  in  close  connexion  with  tD3Br,  in 

verse  16.      In  the  first  half  of  the  book  D3fc?  occurs  about  fifteen 
times,  and  in  the  second  half  about  seventeen  times.     In  the  second 
part  HDD  occurs  about  fifty-three  times.     From  such  a  use  of  words 
no  valid  argument  can  be  drawn  against  the  unity  of  the  book. 
The  word  npSns,  division^  is  first  found  in  Joshua,  in  which  it 

•T    -ii- 

occurs  twice  in  the  first  half  of  the  book  (chap,  xi,  23;  xii,  7),  and 
once  in  the  second  part  (chap,  xviii,  10). 

It  is  not  true,  as  is  alleged  by  Davidson,  that  Moses  is  termed 
servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  historical  sections  only  ;  for  in  chap. 
xiii,  8,  which  is  geographical,  in  speaking  of  lands  divided  among 
different  tribes,  it  is  added,  "  Even  as  Moses  the  servant  of  Jehovah 
gave  them." 

That  in  the  first  division  of  the  book  the  priests  are  named  without 
any  further  designation,  or  with  the  simple  addition  the  Levites,  i.  e., 
Levitical  priests  >  while  in  the  second  division  (chap,  xxi,  4,  10,  13,  19) 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  2G3 

they  are  called  the  sons  of  Aaron,  is  entirely  natural  and  consistent. 
For  in  the  latter  case  the  priests  are  especially  discriminated  from 
the  other  Levites,  because  an  account  is  given  of  the  cities  allotted 
to  the  children  of  Merari,  Gershon,  and  Kohath,  to  which  latter 
Aaron  and  his  sons,  the  priests,  belonged ;  to  them  thirteen  cities 
are  assigned. 

Dr.  Davidson  finds  a  difference  of  style  between  the  first  half  of 
the  book  and  the  second.  In  the  second  division  there  is  a  great 
deal  that  is  geographical,  while  the  first  part  is  entirely  historical. 
Is  not  this  sufficient  to  explain  any  want  of  elegance  met  with  in  the 
second  part?  Are  geographical  boundaries  something  to  be  rounded 
off  in  beautiful  periods  ?  Who  looks  for  elegance  in  a  description 
of  the  lines  and  courses  of  a  plot  of  land  ? 

In  the  account  given  of  twelve  stones  being  taken  up  from  the 
midst  of  the  Jordan,  where  the  priests'  feet  stood  firm,  SomeofBieek,a 
and  of  the  setting  up  of  twelve  stones  in  the  river,  objections  con- 
where  the  feet  of  the  priests  stood,  Bleek  thinks  that  & 
two  different  narratives  are  blended  into  one  ;  or,  what  is  more  prob 
able,  that  the  earlier  account  was  revised.  We  can  see  no  good 
reason  for  either  of  these  views.  They  appear  to  be  arbitrary 
conjectures. 

The  method  pursued  by  Bleek  in  his  treatment  of  this  book  is 
exceedingly  arbitrary.  As  he  refers  Deuteronomy  to  the  time  of 
King  Manasseh,  every  incident  that  has  any  relation  to  that  book 
is,  according  to  him,  an  interpolation  or  addition  to  the  original 
form  of  the  book  of  Joshua.  In  chapter  viii,  30-35,  we  have  an 
account  of  Joshua's  building  an  altar  on  Mount  Ebal,  on  the  stones 
of  which  he  writes  the  words  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  of  his  read 
ing  the  blessings  and  the  cursings,  as  he  had  been  commanded  by 
Moses  in  Deut.  xxvii,  2-6,  etc.  Here,  likewise,  Bleek  thinks  there 
is  at  least  a  partial  interpolation. 

It  is  true  that  this  section  could  be  omitted  without  interfering 
with  the  thread  of  the  narrative,  but  that  is  no  proof  of  interpola 
tion,  as  such  passages  are  found  in  almost  all  histories. 

In  the  account  given  of  the  erection  of  an  altar  at  the  Jordan  by 
the  two  tribes  and  a  half  dwelling  east  of  the  river,  and  the  circum 
stances  connected  with  it,  Bleek  thinks  that  the  story,  by  reason 
of  its  reference  to  Deuteronomy,  bears  the  stamp  of  a  comparatively 
late  age.  But  the  whole  narrative  is  well  connected  and  interwoven, 
and  must  be  wholly  retained  or  wholly  rejected.  Can  we  suppose 
that  such  a  history — in  which  nine  and  a  half  tribes  were  gathered 
together  to  make  war  upon  the  rest  of  Israel  for  the  erection  of  an 
altar  supposed  to  be  treason  against  God — is  a  pure  myth  ? 


264  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

In  a  book  like  that  of  Joshua,  wherein,  from  its  brevity,  much  in 
the  history  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  in  the  life  of  the  great 
captain  is  of  necessity  omitted,  we  should  not  expect  to  find  all  parts 
of  the  history  dovetailed  together.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to 
NO  evidence  maintain  any  hypothesis  that  would  make  the  book  a 
to&a  collection  collection  of  fragments,  or  the  work  of  a  succession  cf 
erf  fragments,  revisers.  Here  we  have  no  place  for  the  Elohist  and 
the  Jehovist.  Schrader,  indeed,  in  his  edition  of  De  Wette,  very 
fancifully  distributes  Joshua,  as  he  does  the  Pentateuch,  among  the 
annalistic,  theocratic,  and  prophetic  narrators,  and  the  author  of 
Deuteronomy.  Can  we  suppose  that  there  were  several  histories 
of  the  times  of  Joshua  written  in  the  period  of  the  judges,  when 
there  was  but  little  literary  activity  among  the  people,  or  in  the  time 
of  Joshua  himself?  As  for  Sc.hrader's  hypothesis,  it  is  impossible 
to  make  any  good  sense  out  of  it.  For  we  cannot  suppose  that  any 
writer  gave  simply  such  an  account  as  the  annalist,  the  theocratic 
or  prophetic  narrator  of  Schrader,  presents  us.  Who  can  believe  that 
the  book  of  Joshua,  in  the  annalist,  began  with  chap,  iv,  15-17  :  "And 
the  Lord  spake  unto  Joshua,  saying,  Command  the  priests  that  bear 
the  ark  of  the  testimony  that  they  come  up  out  of  Jordan,"  etc.? 

THE  DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  BOOK. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  book  that  might  not  have  been  written 

within  twenty-five  years  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  as 
Written   prob 
ably      within  the  latest  recorded  event  is  the  expedition  of  the  Dan- 

yeare  after  the  ites  a§ainst  Leshem  (chap,  xix,  47,  48);  and  the  state- 
death  of  Josh-  ment  that  "  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua, 
and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  Joshua,  and 
which  had  known  all  the  works  of  the  Lord  that  he  had  done  for 
Israel "  (chap,  xxiv,  31),  does  not  carry  us  far  beyond  his  time.  It 
is  evident  that  it  was  written  before  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon, 
for  it  is  said  that  "  the  Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the 
children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  them  out :  but  the  Jebusites  dwell 
with  the  children  of  Judah  at  Jerusalem  unto  this  day  "  (chapter 
xv,  63).  But  David  drove  these  Jebusites  out  of  Jerusalem  (2  Sam. 
v,  6-9).  Again,  it  is  said  that  the  Ephraimites  "  drave  not  out  the 
Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  Gezer:  but  the  Canaanites  dwell  among 
the  Ephraimites  unto  this  day,  and  serve  under  tribute  "  (chapter 
xvi,  10).  But  in  i  Kings  ix,  16,  it  is  stated  that  "Pharaoh,  king 
of  Egypt,  had  gone  up,  and  taken  Gezer,  and  burnt  it  with  fire,  and 
slain  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  the  city,  and  given  it  for  a  present 
unto  his  daughter,  Solomon's  wife."  If  the  book  of  Joshua  had  been 
made  up  of  fragments  written  principally  before  the  time  of  David 


OF    THE   HOL\    SCRIPTURES.  265 

and  Solomon,  but  combined  and  edited  subsequently  to  their  time, 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  Jeb- 
usites  as  still  dwelling  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  Canaanites  in  Gezer, 
would  have  been  allowed  to  remain  without  remark.  Nowhere  in 
Joshua  is  there  the  remotest  allusion  to  any  thing  pertaining  to  the 
times  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  or  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  age 
of  the  judges.  Of  this  the  most  natural  explanation  is,  that  the  book 
was  written  in  neither  of  those  periods. 

In  Joshua  x,  13,  mention  is  made  of  the  book  of  Jasher.  As  this 
is  also  referred  to  in  2  Sam.  i,  18,  as  containing  the  lamentation 
of  David  over  Saul  and  Jonathan,  it  has  been  thought  by  De 
Wette  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  could  not  have  been  written  before 
the  time  of  David.  But  the  proper  title  of  this  quoted  No  alluglon  l 
book  is  the  "Book  of  the  Upright"  a  book  reciting  the  acts  Joshua  to  the 


of  just  men,  not  named  after  the  author,  for  in  that  case  jlldges'or  the 


the  noun  Jashar  would  not  have  had  the  article  Tn,  Kings. 
the  Jashar,  or,  the  upright.  Gesenius  understands  it  to  be  "a  collec 
tion  or  anthology  of  ancient  Hebrew  poems,  ...  so  called  as  cele 
brating  the  praises  of  upright  men,  or,  perhaps,  for  some  other  cause  " 
(Heb.  Lex.).  Fiirst  prefers  to  render  it,  "the  Book  of  the  Israelites, 
i.e.,  national  book,"  according  to  a  tradition  in  the  Talmud  (Heb. 
Lex.).  It  may,  accordingly,  have  been  a  record  of  the  actions 
of  pious  Israelites,  written  in  the  age  of  Joshua  and  subsequently. 

The  numerous  particulars  given  in  various  parts  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua  at  least  show  that  the  author  drew  from  original  sources, 
if  he  was  not  contemporary  with  the  events  he  relates. 

In  reference  to  Rahab  the  harlot  it  is  said,  "she  dwelleth  in 
Israel  even  unto  this  day  "  (chap,  vi,  25),  which  most  naturally 
means  that  Rahab  was  still  alive  when  the  book  was  written.  Re 
specting  the  Gibeonites  who  had  deceived  Joshua,  it  is  said  he 
"  made  them  that  day  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the 
congregation,  .and  for  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  even  unto  this  day,  in 
the  place  which  he  should  choose  "  (chap,  ix,  27),  which  shows  that 
Jerusalem  was  not  yet  chosen. 

From  the  brief  manner  in  which  Joshua  pronounces  a  curse  upon 
the  rebuilder  of  Jericho  (vi,  26),  it  is  evident  that  the  prophecy  was 
written  before  the  time  of  Ahab  (918-897  B.  C.),  in  whose  days  Hiel 
rebuilt  it  (i  Kings  xvi,  34). 

The  language  of  Josh,  v,  i  furnishes  a  probable  proof  that  the 
writer  was  among  those  who  crossed  the  Jordan.  When  they  "  heard 
that  the  Lord  had  dried  up  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  from  before  the 
children  of  Israel,  until  we  were  passed  over"  etc.  In  the  margin, 
however,  D"ttj,*,  until  they  passed  over,  is  written,  and  so  the  passige 


266  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

is  rendered  by  the  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Peshito-Syriac,  which 
diminishes  something  of  the  force  of  the  passage  as  it  stands  written 
in  the  Hebrew  text,  but  is  not  conclusive  against  it. 

In  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  Zidon  is 
called  "great  Zidon"  (Josh,  xi,  8;  xix,  28),  and  Tyre  is  of  inferior 
importance  (Josh,  xix,  29) ;  but  in  the  time  of  the  prophet  Joel 
(B.  C.  800)  Tyre  is  of  the  first  importance,  and  Zidon  second  (Joel 
iii,  4) ;  so  also  in  the  time  of  Isaiah  (chap,  xxiii). 

In  various  parts  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  occurs  the  phrase  "  unto 
this  day."  But  this  by  no  means  indicates  a  long  interval  between 
the  events  and  the  time  of  the  writer,  and  it  is  used  simply  to  de 
clare  the  facts  or  condition  of  things  in  the  writer's  time. 

That  Joshua  was  written  before  the  Book  of  Judges  is  evident 
Direct  proof  of  from  the  fact  that  Judges  begins  where  Joshua  leaves  off, 
written  before  anc*  ^capitulates  but  few  of  the  events  recorded  in  the 
judges.  latter.  In  some  instances  there  seems  to  be  a  quotation 

of  Joshua  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  in  other  instances  an  abridg 
ment.  As  a  general  rule,  in  historical  statements  the  circumstantial 
account  is  the  primitive  one,  while  the  shorter,  or  abridged  form,  is 
later.  For  a  subsequent  writer,  living  far  away  in  point  of  time  trom 
the  events,  has  nothing  of  his  own  to  add,  and  he  often  satisfies  him 
self  with  giving  the  substance  of  what  is  well  known.  As  an  exam 
ple  of  the  quotation  of  Joshua  in  Judges,  compare  Josh-,  xv,  16-19 
with  Judges  i,  12—15.  Judges  i,  19  is  an  abridgment  of  Josh,  xvii, 
15-18.  Judges  iii,  3  is  an  abridgment  of  Josh,  xiii,  1-6.  It  is  evi 
dent  that  Josh,  xxiv,  28-31  is  older  than  Judges  ii,  6-9,  for  the  last 
verse  of  the  former  states  that  "  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days 
of  Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  Joshua,  and 
which  had  known  all  the  works  of  the  Lord,  that  he  had  done  for  Is 
rael."  To  this  passage  the  author  of  Judges,  living  at  a  later  period, 
adds:  "And  also  all  that  generation  were  gathered  unto  their  fa 
thers  :  and  there  arose  another  generation  after  them,  which  knew 
not  the  Lord,  nor  yet  the  works  which  he  had  done  for  Israel  " 
(Judg.  ii,  10). 

It  seems  very  clear,  where  the  same  facts  are  related  both  in  Joshua 
and  Judges,  that  in  the  former  book  the  narratives  are  the  originals, 
from  their  being  fuller,  and  standing  in  close  connexion  with  each 
other,  while  in  the  latter  book  they  are  comparatively  isolated. 

Respecting  the  authorship  of  the  book  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
The  authorship  speak  with  certainty.  We  may,  however,  confidently 
of  Joshua.  assert  that  it  had  not  the  same  author  as  the  books  of 
the  Pentateuch.  For  wn,  /iu,  which  occurs  nearly  two  hundred 
times  in  the  Pentateuch  as  feminine,  meaning  sfie,  is  never  so  used 


OF    THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  267 

in  Joshua,  but  a  separate  form  N'n,  /it]  is  employed  to  designate  this 
gender,  and  occurs  twenty  times.  In  the  Pentateuch  the  form  of 
Jericho  is  always  I'm-,  Yerecho,  occurring  eleven  times,  while  in 
Joshua  we  have  always  the  form  I'ITT,  Yericho,  occurring  twenty- 
seven  times.  In  the  Pentateuch,  when  the  kingdom  of  Og  or  Sihon 
is  mentioned,  it  is  HJ^OD,  mamlakhah,  but  in  Joshua  it  is  no^SD, 
mamlakhuth.  There  are  some  other  words  in  which  the  Pentateuch 
and  Joshua  differ. 

It  is  expressly  stated  that  Joshua  wrote  the  words  of  the  covenant 
he  made  with  the  people  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God  (chap,  xxiv, 
25,  26).  And  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that 
he  himself  wrote  memoirs  of  his  time.  These,  with  the  description 
of  the  land  given  in  a  book  (chap,  xviii,  4-9),  served  as  the  basis  of 
the  work,  which  was  probably  composed  by  Eleazar  or  Phinehas. 
How  far  the  book  of  Jashar  was  used  it  is  impossible  to  say,  as 
there  is  but  one  reference  to  it  (chap,  x,  13).  According  to  the 
Talmud  *  the  Book  of  Joshua  was  written  by  Joshua  himself.  To 
this  work  Eleazar,  the  son  cf  Aaron,  gave  the  conclusion,  and  Phin 
ehas  afterwards  added  the  last  verse.  Though  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  prophets,  it  was  still  regarded  as  an  appendage  to  the  Penta 
teuch. 

THE    HISTORICAL    CREDIBILITY    OF   JOSHUA. 

The  great  outlines  of  the  history  must  be  undoubtedly  true,  if 
written  either  in  the  time  of  Joshua  or  in  the  subse-  The  higtor 
quent  age.     In  any  event,  the  account  of  the  settling  of  evidently  con- 
the  Promised  Land  by  the  different  tribes  of  Israel  must  temporary- 
be  true,  as  we  know   they  conquered   the  country  and   divided  it 
among  themselves.     The  numerous  details  given  in  various  parts  of 
the  history  indicate  that  many  of  the  events  were  committed  to  writ 
ing  soon  after  they  occurred,  and  must  be  matters  of  fact. 

All  through  the  history  the  Israelites  are  represented  as  being 
directed  by  the  Almighty,  who  aided  them  in  their  conquests.  Thero 
is  nothing  improbable  in  this,  if  we  believe  that  God  brought  them 
out  of  Egypt  and  led  them  through  the  desert  ;  it  was  but  the  com 
pletion  of  the  exodus. 

Dr.  Davidson  admits  :  "  that  Joshua  led  the  Israelites  into  the 
Promised  Land  after  the  death  of  Moses  ;  that  he  con-  The 


quered  a  great  part  of  the  territory  belonging  to  the   8ai<1  bJ  Dr-  Da' 
*,  .      &        ,   j.       .,  ,  .  vidson    to    bo 

Canaamtes,  and  distributed  it  among  the  various  tribes  ;    mythical,  con- 

that  the  tabernacle  was  set  up  at  Gilgal  and  Shiloh  ;  and  8idered- 
that  there  were  two  distributions  of  territory,  the  former,  of  the  con- 

1  Furst,  p.  10. 


238  INTRODUCTION   MO   THE   STUDY 

quered  parts  in  the  southern  half  of  Palestine,  and  the  second,  of 
other  territory,  cannot  be  disbelieved."  l  He,  however,  regards  a 
part  of  the  history  as  mythical.  He  admits  nothing  miraculous  in 
the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  by  the  Israelites ;  "  for  an  army,"  he  tells 
us,  "  could  pass  over  the  fords  of  Jordan  without  much  difficul 
ty,  apart  from  any  marvellous  interference  of  Jehovah."  In  proof 
of  this  he  cites  the  fact  that  the  troops  of  David  and  Absalom 
crossed  it,  where  there  is  no  allusion  to  anything  miraculous  (2  Sam. 
xvii,  xix).  But  the  instances  cited  are  not  to  the  point,  unless  it  can 
be  shown  that  these  passages  occurred  at  the  same  season  in  which 
it  was  crossed  by  the  Israelites.  It  is  especially  stated  in  the  narra 
tive  :  "  for  Jordan  overflowed!  all  his  banks  all  the  time  of  harvest  " 
(Josh,  iii,  15). 

If  the  Jordan  had  been  very  low  at  the  time,  this  fact  might  have 
been  attributed  to  Divine  interposition,  and  the  story  might  have 
arisen  that  Jehovah  dried  up  the  waters.  But  how  could  the  story 
have  arisen  that  the  waters  had  been  cut  off.  when,  in  fact,  the  Isra 
elites  must  have  been,  without  the  interposition  of  Providence,  near 
drowning  in  the  passage  at  that  season  of  the  year  ?  How  could  the 
story  have  arisen  about  the  stones  that  were  taken  up  from  the  Jor 
dan  at  the  time,  and  deposited  in  Gilgal,  for  the  perpetual  memorial 
of  the  drying  up  of  the  river  ? 

Dr.  Davidson  also  rejects  the  account  of  the  falling  of  the  walls 
of  Jericho  through  the  intervention  of  Jehovah.  He  thinks  it  was 
captured  in  a  natural  way.  How,  then,  did  the  circumstantial  ac 
count  of  its  overthrow  by  Jehovah  arise  ?  The  original  account 
must  in  that  case  have  been  entirely  forgotten,  and  the  present  ac 
count  have  been  a  sheer  fabrication.  But  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
capture  of  the  first  important  city  of  Palestine  should  have  been  so 
soon  forgotten,  and  that  a  history  of  its  capture  entirely  different 
from  that  of  the  other  cities  should  have  been  fabricated  to  take  its 
place. 

In  the  description  of  Joshua's  defeat  of  the  hosts  of  the  five  kings 
The  standing  °^  t^ie  Amorites  occurs  an  account  of  a  remarkable 
stni  of  the  sun  miracle,  the  standing  still  of  the  sun  and  moon,  which 
seems  to  create  great  difficulty,  and  has  given  rise  to 
many  discussions  and  conjectures :  "  Then  spake  Joshua  to  Jeho 
vah  in  the  day  when  Jehovah  delivered  up  the  Amorites  before  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  he  said  in  the  sight  of  Israel,  Sun,  stand  thou 
still  upon  Gibeon;  and  thou,  Moon,  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon.  And 
the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed,  until  the  people  had 
avenged  themselves  upon  their  enemies.  Is  not  this  written  in  the 

1  Vol.  i,  p.  430- 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  269 

book  of  Jashar  (the  Upright)  ?  So  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst 
of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down  about  a  whole  day.  And 
there  was  no  day  like  that  before  it  or  after  it,  that  Jehovah  heark 
ened  unto  the  voice  of  a  man  :  for  Jehovah  fought  for  Israel "  (chap. 
x,  12-14). 

In  this  passage  all  that  precedes  "  is  not  this  written  in  the  Book 
of  Jashar  ?  "  beginning  with  "  sun,  stand  thou,"  etc.,  must  be  a  quota 
tion  from  this  poetical  book.  If  nothing  more  than  this  poetical  ex 
tract  were  given  we  might  regard  it  as  a  bold  figure,  meaning  nothing 
more  than  that  Joshua  commanded  the  sun  to  stand  still,  that  is,  that 
it  should  not  go  down  until  he  had  subdued  his  enemies,  and  that  in 
reality  the  sun  seemed  reluctant  to  set.  And  this  might  be  con 
firmed  by  the  song  of  Deborah  (Judges  v,  20) :  "  The  stars  in  their 
courses  fought  against  Sisera."  But  the  addition  made  by  the  sa 
cred  historian  renders  such  an  explanation  as  this  a  difficult  one  : 
"  So  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go 
down  about  a  whole  day. .  And  there  was  no  day  like  that  before  or 
after  it,  that  Jehovah  hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  a  man  :  for  Jehovah 
fought  for  Israel."  In  this  remark  there  is  nothing  poetical,  but  the 
historian  tells  us  that  the  sun  remained  in  mid-heaven  about  a  whole 
day.  If  the  day  was  not  lengthened,  there  was  no  place  for  this 
remark. 

To  this  passage  there  seems  to  be  an  allusion  in  the  prayer  of 
Habakkuk,  which  refers  to  the  wonders  of  the  exodus  :  Reference  ^ 
"  The  sun  and  the  moon  stood  still  in  their  habitation  "  this  miracle  in 
(chap,  iii,  n).  Yet  it  is  remarkable  that  this  stupendous  l 
miracle  is  nowhere  else  referred  to,  either  in  the  Old  or  in  the  New 
Testament.  This  fact,  however,  is  no  sufficient  cause  for  its  rejec 
tion.  The  principal  difficulty  respecting  the  standing  still  of  the 
sun  and  moon  seems  to  be,  that  under  the  circumstances  no  such 
magnificent  miracle  was  necessary.  But  here  it  must  be  confessed 
that  we  have  no  means  &  priori  of  determining  how  far  the  Deity 
would  control  natural  laws  for  the  salvation  of  his  people.  In 
granting  that  Divine  power  assisted  Joshua  in  the  conquest  of  Ca 
naan,  we  cannot  consistently  stint  this  power,  or  subject  it  to  arbi 
trary  rules  of  our  own.  This  would  be  as  inconsistent  as  it  is  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Darwin,  who,  in  creation,  limits  the  Deity  to  the  origina 
tion  of  a  few  primordial  forms,  into  which  he  infused  life.  There 
seems  to  be  no  middle  ground  between  accepting  the  miracle,  or 
rejecting  the  account  of  it  as  an  interpolation  ;  but  of  the  latter 
hypothesis  we  have  no  proof. 

The  language  of  Joshua  addressed  to  the  sun  and  moon  has 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  truths  of  astronomy.  We  are  not  to 


270  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

suppose  that  Joshua  was  acquainted  with  the  true  system  of  the  uni 
verse,  nor  do  we  suppose  that  the  historian  had  any  such  knowledge. 
It  made  no  difference  to  the  Israelites  whether  the  sun  or  earth 
stood  still,  provided  the  day  was  lengthened.  Even  a  modern  as 
tronomer  might  use  the  language  of  Joshua,  and  the  historian  cer 
tainly,  without  inconsistency. 

In  the  address  of  Joshua  at  Shechem  he  exhorts  the  people  to 
put  away  the  gods  which  their  fathers  served  in  Mesopotamia  and 
in  Egypt,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  (chap,  xxiv,  14).  This  does  not 
imply  that  the  people  in  the  time  of  Joshua  were  idolaters,  but  it 
warns  them  of  the  danger  of  relapsing  into  idolatry.  And  the  an 
swer  of  the  people  clearly  shows  that  they  were  not  idolaters,  for 
they  reply  :  "  God  forbid  that  we  should  forsake  Jehovah  to  serve 
other  gods  "  (chap,  xxiv,  16).  This  harmonizes  with  the  statement 
that  "  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua,"  etc.  (ver.  31) 


T 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

THE    BOOK    OF    JUDGES. 

HE  Book  of  Judges  (O'Bfli'B?)  stands  next  in  the  Hebrew  Canon. 

It  takes  its  name  from  its  being  principally  occupied  with  the 
history  of  those  judges  who  ruled  in  the  period  between  Joshua  and 
the  Prophet  Samuel. 

Chapters  i,  ii,  iii,  1-7,  contain  isolated  events  that  occurred  in  the 
history  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  in  part  a  repetition  of  those  in 
Joshua,  and  also  a  general  statement  of  the  sins,  the  punishments, 
and  the  deliverances  of  Israel  in  the  days  of  the  judges,  which  serves 
as  an  introduction  to  the  more  special  history  of  these  times.  The 
next  section  (chapter  iii,  8-xvi)  embraces  the  names  of  thirteen 
judges,  raised  up  by  Providence  for  the  deliverance  of  Israel,  and 
gives  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  most  conspicuous  of  them.  The 
last  five  chapters  (xvii-xxi)  relate  several  important  events  which 
occurred  in  the  times  of  the  judges,  but  which  do  not  belong  to  the 
thread  of  the  narrative  in  the  preceding  chapters;  viz.,  the  affairs  of 
Micah,  the  capture  of  Laish  by  the  Danites,  the  war  between  the 
Benjamites  and  the  other  tribes  of  Israel  growing  out  of  the  abuse, 
by  a  band  of  Benjamites,  of  a  concubine  of  a  Levite,  and  the  con 
trivance  by  which  the  Benjamites  obtained  wives  from  the  other 
tribes. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  271 


THE   UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK. 

There  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  assigning  this  book  to  several 
authors,  as  some  have  done.  It  is  evident  that  the  main  Not  the  wort 
portion  (chap,  ii,  6-xvi)  proceeded  from  one  source  ;  for  of  several  au- 
it  narrates  the  history  of  the  judges,  in  which  we  can  see 
no  diversity  of  authorship ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  ever-recurring 
phrase,  "  The  children  of  Israel  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  " 
(chaps,  ii,  n,  iii,  7,  vi,  i),  or  with  the  addition  of  "again  "  to  this 
phrase  (chapters  iii,  12,  iv,  I,  x,  6,  xiii),  points  to  one  writer.  In  the 
history  of  Samson  (chapters  xiii-xvi)  we  have  a  connected  ac 
count,  evidently  written  by  one  author.  In  fact,  the  main  portion  of 
the  book  is  quite  closely  connected  together.  The  last  five  chap 
ters  (chapters  xvii-xxi),  disconnected  from  the  chapters  preceding, 
narrate  events  that  belonged  to  the  early  part  of  the  history  of  the 
judges.  In  respect  to  the  use  of  language  in  different  parts  of  the 
book,  we  may  observe  that  }#o,  mashakh,  in  the  sense  of  to  approach, 
to  draw  near,  seems  to  be  found  nowhere  except  in  Judges  iv,  6  and 
xx,  37.  The  Niphal  form  of  pjtt,  zaaq,  to  be  gathered,  occurs  in  Judg. 
vi,  34,  35,  and  in  xviii,  22,  23,  1'rD^T_  1D«,  to  be  impeded  of  the  right 
hand,  to  be  left-handed,  Judges  iii,  15 ;  xx,  16 ;  nowhere  else. 
And,  as  the  events  related  in  them  belong  to  the  early  period  of 
the  judges,  and  are  described  with  so  much  vividness,  there  is  no 
reason  for  referring  their  composition  to  an  age  later  than  that  of 
the  preceding  chapters.  This  Bleek  himself  acknowledges.1 

Respecting  the  first  part  of  the  book  (chapters  i-ii,  5),  there 
is  no  good  reason  for  attributing  it  to  another  author  than  that  of 
the  middle  portion.  It  begins  with  the  statement,  "  Now  after  the 
death  of  Joshua,  it  came  to  pass  that  the  children  of  Israel  asked 
the  Lord,  saying,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  against  the  Canaanites 
first  to  fight  against  them?  And  the  Lord  said,  Judah  shall  go  up," 
etc.  After  this  the  chapter  presents  an  account  of  conquests  made 
by  Judah  and  Simeon,  and  also  by  Joseph ;  and  a  statement  is  given 
of  the  places  from  which  different  tribes  of  Israel  were  unable  to 
drive  out  the  native  inhabitants.  Here  it  must  be  observed  that 
some  of  the  incidents  are  also  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  as 
having  occurred  in  his  time,  and  it  would  seem  best  to  suppose 
that  the  achievements  of  Judah  are  referred  to  in  a  general  way, 
and  that  events  which  occurred  both  before  and  after  the  death 
of  Joshua  are  not  always  discriminated. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter  it  is  stated  that  the  angel  of 

1  Page  349. 


272  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

Jehovah  rebuked  the  Israelites  for  making  a  covenant  with  the  Ca- 
naanites,  and  not  throwing  down  their  altars;  whereupon  the  Israel 
ites  wept  and  sacrificed  to  Jehovah.  This  is  a  very  suitable  intro 
duction  to  the  history  that  is  to  follow,  which  begins  at 'the  sixth 
verse,  with  the  statement,  "  And  when  Joshua  had  let  the  people  go, 
the  children  of  Israel  went  every  man  unto  his  inheritance  to  possess 
the  land."  This  is  followed  by  the  statement  that  the  people  served 
the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that 
outlived  Joshua.  Next  we  have  an  account  of  the  death  of  Joshua, 
and  the  remark  that  all  that  generation  were  gathered  unto  their 
fathers.  Another  generation  of  men  arises  who  know  not  Jehovah, 
and  they  sin  against  him.  We  can  find  no  sufficient  proof  from  the 
connexion  of  the  history  to  justify  the  remark  of  Bleek,1  that  it  is 
not  at  all  probable  that  the  historian  would  have  written,  "  Now  after 
the  death  of  Joshua  it  came  to  pass  "  (ch.  i,  i) ;  and  afterwards,  "And 
Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  died  "  (ch.  ii,  8). 

In  chap,  i,  i,  2,  it  is  said,  "  The  children  of  Israel  asked  the  Lord, 
saying,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  against  the  Canaanites  first,  to  fight 
against  them?  And  the  Lord  said,  Judah  shall  go  up."  With  this 
compare,  for  a  proof  of  sameness  of  authorship  (xx,  18),  "  And  the 
children  of  Israel  asked  counsel  of  God,  and  said,  Which  of  us  shall 
go  up  first  to  the  battle  against  the  children  of  Benjamin?  And  the 
Lord  said,  Judah  shall  go  up  first."  In  both  passages  we  have  n^nna, 
battechillah,  first,  in  the  sense  of  making  a  beginning — the  only  pas 
sages  in  the  Bible  in  which  Gesenius  so  defines  the  word. 

Criticism  should  be  very  careful  not  to  lay  down  arbitrary  laws  in 
Caution  need-  determining  the  unity  of  authorship  respecting  books  writ- 

tateraaieirartt?  ten  at  so  earlv  an  a8e  of  the  world>  wnen  we  nave  no  other 
cism.  works  of  the  same  period  with  which  to  compare  them. 

Even  in  regard  to  the  finest  productions  of  the  age  of  Pericles  in 
Greece,  and  of  Augustus  in  Rome,  this  caution  is  needed.  What  have 
the  first  three  chapters  of  Sallust's  Jugurthine  War  to  do  with  his 
history  ?  yet  who  doubts  the  genuineness  of  those  chapters  ?  The 
search  for  separate  and  independent  documents  in  the  books  of  the 
Bible  seems  to  have  become  a  passion  with  many  of  the  German 
critics,  and  it  has  been  carried  to  a  most  ridiculous  length. 

THE  DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP  OF  JUDGES. 

The  Book  of  Judges  bears  internal  evidence  of  being  written  be- 
Not     written  fore  the  middle  of  the  reign  of  David ;  for  in  chap,  i,  21 
o?  the  it:  is  stated  that  "the  children  of  Benjamin  did  not  drive 
David,  out  the  Jebusites  that  inhabited  Jerusalem  ;  but  the  Jeb- 
1  Einleitung,  p.  345. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  273 

usites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Benjamin  in  Jerusalem  unto  this 
day."  David,  however,  took  the  stronghold  of  Zion,  and  drove  out 
the  Jebusites  (2  Sam.  v,  6-8).  In  Judges  i,  29  it  is  said,  "  Neither 
did  Ephraim  drive  out  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  Gezer,  but  the 
Canaanites  dwelt  in  Gezer  among  them."  This  could  not  have  been 
written  later  than  the  reign  of  Solomon,  as  it  was  during  the  time  of 
that  monarch  that  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,  captured  Gezer,  burnt  it 
with  nie,  slew  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  it,  and  gave  it  as  a  dowry 
to  his  daughter,  the  wife  of  Solomon  (i  Kings  ix,  16). 

On  the  other  hand,  the  book  could  not  well  have  been  written 
before  the  time  of  Saul,  or  the  first  part  of  the  reign  could  not  have 
of  David,  as  there  seems  to  be  a  comparison  between  |jJore  tJj2$Je 
the  times  of  the  kings  and  those  of  the  judges  in  the  of  Saul, 
phrase,  "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel ;  every  man  did 
that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes  "  (chaps,  xvii,  6 ;  xxi,  25) ;  or, 
simply, "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel  "  (chaps,  xviii,  i ; 
xix,  i). 

In  chapter  xviii,  30  it  is  stated,  "  The  children  of  Dan  set  up  the 
graven  image  (of  Micah)  :  and  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Conjectural 
Gershom,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  he  and  his  sons  were  emendation  in 
priests  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  until  the  day  of  the  captivity  chap*  xvm' 30- 
of  the  land."  The  latter  part  of  this  verse  has  an  important  bearing 
upon  the  date  of  the  book ;  for  if  the  Assyrian  captivity  is  referred 
to,  we  shall  be  compelled  either  to  treat  the  passage  as  an  interpo 
lation,  or  to  refer  the  composition  of  the  whole  to  some  time  subse 
quent  to  that  event,  that  is,  after  B.  C.  721.  Houbigant  conjectured 
that  we  should  read,  instead  of  "pxn  ni^J,  captivity  of  the  land,  m'*?J 

jViNn,  captivity  of  the  ark,  referring  it  to  the  capture  of  the  ark  of  God 
'by  the  Philistines  at  the  death  of  Eli.  This  conjecture  is  adopted 
by  Bleek  and  Davidson.  The  emendation  gives  a  suitable  meaning 
to  the  passage,  but  we  see  no  sufficient  reason  to  adopt  it.  But 
if  the  phrase  pxn  rribj,  captivity  of  the  land,  is  to  be  received  as  the 

true  reading,  the  context  forbids  its  reference  to  the  Assyrian 
captivity ;  for  the  next  verse,  which  is  parallel  and  partly  ex 
planatory  of  this,  reads :  "  And  they  set  them  up  Micah 's 
graven  image,  which  he  made,  all  the  time  that  the  house 
of  God  was  in  Shiloh."-  But,  after  the  removal  of  the  ark 
from  Shiloh,  and  its  capture  by  the  Philistines,  Shiloh  could 
no  longer  be  regarded  as  the  house  of  God.  Hence  "the 
captivity  of  the  land  "  refers  to  the  victory  gained  over  the  Isra 
elites  by  the  Philistines,  and  the  deplorable  consequences  to  Israel 
that  followed  it.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  Psa.  Ixxviii,  60,  61 :  "  So  he 
VOL.  I.— 18 


274  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

forsook  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh  .  .  .  and  delivered  his  strength 
into  captivity." 

Dr.  Davidson  remarks  on  chaps,  i,  ii,  1-5  that  this  section  "  has  an 
Davidson  and  inherently  vivid  character,  which  favours  its  composition 
Bieek  on  the  soon  after  the  events  described  occurred."  The  same 
dateof  Judges.  autnor  refers  chapters  xvii-xxi  to  the  time  of  the  kings, 
"perhaps  the  reign  of  Saul,  or  the  beginning  of  David's;"  and,  while 
admitting  that  the  middle  portion  (chaps,  ii,  6-xvi)  contains  materials 
as  old  as  any  other  part  of  the  book,  and  "  that  the  constituent  parts 
are  authentic  records  of  a  pretty  early  date,"  he  thinks  the  compiler 
of  the  whole  work  must  be  placed  in  the  time  of  the  later  kings.1 
Bleek  refers  the  composition  of  the  book,  as  a  whole,  to  the  time 
of  the  earlier  kings.  Schrader  absurdly  refers  the  final  composition, 
or  present  form  of  the  book,  to  the  close  of  the  Jewish  kingdom, 
about  B.  C.  600.' 

Respecting  the  authorship  of  Judges,  nothing  is  known.  The 
Talmud,3  most  of  the  rabbies,  as  well  as  many  Christian  theologians, 
attribute  it  to  Samuel,  and  this  is  not  at  all  improbable. 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  ITS  HISTORY. 

The  Book  of  Judges  bears  every  mark  of  being  veritable  history. 
There  is  a  vividness  in  many  of  its  narratives  that  is  rarely  sur 
passed.  What  a  natural  picture  we  have  in  the  nineteenth  chapter, 
in  which  the  Jebusites  are  represented  as  still  dwelling  in  Jerusalem  ! 
How  many  particulars  are  given  which  must  have  come  from  eye 
witnesses  !  The  song  of  Deborah,  which  celebrates  the  defeat  of 
Sisera  by  Barak,  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  composition  belonging  to 
the  time  of  the  Judges.  It  is  exceedingly  spirited,  and  frequently 
sublime ;  and  the  vivid  manner  in  which  it  sets  forth  in  detail  the 
conflict  with  Sisera  shows  that  it  must  have  been  composed,  even 
if  not  written,  soon  after  the  events  described. 

Even  De  Wette  says  of  the  history  in  the  book  :  "  Although  the 
DeWette'sad-  narrative  is  partly  interwoven  with  miraculous  and 
missions  as  to  mythological  traits,  it  bears  the  stamp,  not  only  of  a 

the     genuine-        J      .  '  ...  *\  / 

ness  of  this  genuine,  not  over-refined  tradition  of  the  people,  but 
history.  even  of  a  true  historical  transmission,  and  it  gives  us  a 

vivid  picture  of  the  condition  and  of  the  morals  of  the  people  in 
those  times."4  "The  descriptions  of  the  book,"  says  Dr  Davidson, 
"  are,  commonly,  natural  and  graphic,  bearing  on  their  face  the  im- 

1  Page  466.  *  Einleitung,  p.  333. 

8  Baba  Batra,  I4b.   Furst  explains  the  Talmudic  passage  to  mean  that  the  Prophet 
Samuel  edited  the  book  from  existing  single  narratives. — Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  ii. 
*  Schrader's  De  Wette,  p.  327. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  275 

press  of  historical  truth."  '  But,  notwithstanding  this  statement,  he 
finds  mythological  exaggerations  in  the  history  of  Gideon  and  Sam 
son  ;  that  is,  the  supernatural  parts  of  the  history  are  myths.  But 
would  it  not  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  same  writer  who  describes 
so  faithfully  and  minutely  events  in  some  chapters,  should,  in  others, 
give  us  so  many  myths  when  treating  of  the  affairs  of  the  same  age, 
with  which  he  seems  to  be  equally  familiar?  Are  we  to  reject  every 
thing  superhuman  in  the  history  of  the  Israelites  ? 

Schrader  thinks  he  finds  repetitions  and  contradictions,  and  a  dif 
ferent  tone  of  representation,  and  a  different  economy,  The  oplnlon  of 
in  various  parts  of  the  book.  But  the  instances  he  cites  Schrader  as  to 
amount  to  little  or  nothing.  He  finds  a  contradiction 
between  chapter  i,  18,  where  it  is  stated  that  "  Judah  took  Gaza  with 
the  coast  thereof,  and  Ekron  with  the  coast  thereof,"  and  chapter 
iii,  3,  where  "  five  lords  of  the  Philistines  "  are  mentioned  as  being 
left  unsubdued  to  prove  Israel.  It  requires  no  deep  investigation 
to  remove  the  scarcely  apparent  discrepancy ;  for  in  the  latter 
passage  reference  is  made  to  the  nations  left  unsubdued  at  the  death  of 
Joshua^  which  is  perfectly  plain  from  the  latter  part  of  the  preceding 
chapter ;  but  the  former  passage  (chap,  i,  18)  speaks  of  what  was  done 
after  the  death  of  Joshua. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

THE    BOOK    OF    RUTH. 

''PHIS  book,  though  placed  in  the  Hagiographa,  which  is  the  fourth 
"*•    and  last  division  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  properly  belongs  to  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  in  whose  times  the  events  described  in  it 
occurred. 

In  the  days  of  the  judges  of  Israel,  when  there  was  a  famine  in 
the  land,  Elimelech,  of  Bethlehem-Judah,  his  wife  Naomi,  and  his 
two  sons,  Mahlon  and  Chilion,  went  to  sojourn  in  the  land  of  Moab. 
Upon  the  death  of  Elimelech  his  two  sons  marry  women  of  Moab — 
Orpah  and  Ruth.  After  the  death  of  her  two  sons,  Naomi,  with  her 
daughter-in-law  Ruth,  returns  to  Bethlehem.  After  this  Ruth  gleans 
ears  of  corn  in  the  field  of  Boaz,  a  relative  of  Elimelech.  Boaz  thus 
becomes  acquainted  with  Ruth,  and  finally  marries  her.  Of  this 
union  is  born  a  son,  Obed,  the  father  of  Jesse,  the  father  of  David 
(chaps,  i-iv). 

1  Vol.  i,  page  469. 


276  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

DESIGN  OF  THE  BOOK. 

The  book  was  evidently  written  to  give  the  ancestry  of  David, 
and  ends  with  the  verse,  "And  Obed  begat  Jesse,  and  Jesse  begat 
David."  To  seek  for  any  other  design  than  this  is  useless. 

ITS  DATE  AND  AUTHOR. 

It  was  probably  written  not  later  than  the  time  of  David.  When 
he  had  become  king  over  Israel,  and  gained  a  great  reputation,  it 
was  natural  that  some  one  should  write  out  his  genealogy.  Had 
the  book  been  written  after  his  time,  it  is  likely  that  Solomon,  at 
least,  would  also  have  been  named. 

The  language  of  Ruth  bears  great  similarity  to  that  of  the  books 
of  Judges  and  Samuel;  yet  there  is  a  tendency  in  some  instances 
towards  Aramaic  forms.  The  addition  of  yodh  (')  to  the  second 
person  singular,  preterit  feminine,  in  the  words  "'DDtf,  WT  (chapter 
iii,  3),  and  T\33\ff  (chap,  iii,  4),  is  Aramaic ;  yet  they  may  have  been 
very  ancient  forms,  as  we  have  the  same  ending  to  the  personal  pro 
noun,  second  person  feminine  (in  Judg.  xvii,  2),  *r\x.  The  form  ""uapn 
chap,  ii,  8)  is  Aramaic.  No  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  ending,  nun 
(}),  second  person,  singular,  future,  in  a  few  words,  as  it  occurs  in 
i  Sam.  i,  14;  and  second  person  plural,  future,  masculine  termina 
tion  (p),  occurs  even  in  Genesis.  Such  forms  are  no  proof  of  a  late 
stage  of  the  language. 

The  phrase  D'tfJ  mi,  to  take  wives  (chap,  i,  4),  though  considered 
a  late  expression,  is,  nevertheless,  found  in  Judges  xxi,  23. 

Bleek  *  observes  on  the  Aramaic  forms,  "  that  they  are  not  of  such 
a  nature  that  the  age  of  the  composition  of  the  work  can  be  deter 
mined  from  them  with  any  degree  of  certainty." 

If  we  were  sure  that  no  generations  have  been  omitted  between 
Obed  and  Jesse,  it  would  be  easy  to  fix  the  narrative  as  belonging 
to  the  times  of  the  great-grandfather  of  David.  But,  as  several  gen 
erations  between  Hezron  and  Boaz  are  omitted  (chap,  iv,  18-21),  a 
similar  omission  may  have  been  made  between  Obed  and  Jesse. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  NARRATIVE. 

The  history  of  Naomi  and  Ruth,  and  the  marriage  of  the  latter 
The  history  a  with  Boaz,  are  given  with  great  simplicity,  and  impress  us 

SeTHeb^w  deeP1>r  with  their  truth-     Nowhere  can  there  be  found 
life.  a  more  beautiful  picture  of  the  early  country  life  of  the 

Hebrews.     Few,  indeed,  have  regarded  the  narrative  as  a  fiction. 

1  Page  356. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  277 

And,  indeed,  what  Hebrew  would  have  thought  of  inventing  the 
story  that  the  great  king  of  the  nation  sprang  in  part  from  Moabite 
blood ! 

"  The  little  book  of  the  gleaner  Ruth,"  says  Humboldt,  "  presents 
us  with  a  charming  and  exquisitely  simple  picture  of  nature.  Goethe, 
at  the  period  of  his  enthusiasm  for  the  East,  spoke  of  it  '  as  the  love 
liest  specimen  of  epic  and  idyllic  poetry  which  we  possess.' " 

RABBINICAL  VIEW  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

"  '  This  book,'  says  tradition,  *  on  account  of  its  contents  would 
never  have  been  admitted  into  the  Kethubim  (Hagiographa),  as  it 
contains  no  law,  prophecy,  or  national  history,  were  it  not  that  the 
object  of  its  admission  was  to  show  forth  the  divine  favour  bestowed 
upon  Boaz  for  his  liberality  and  benevolence,  by  making  him  the  pro 
genitor  of  the  royal  house  of  David.'  Tradition  also  held  that  the 
history  of  the  woman  related  in  it  is  really  true,  genuine,  and  credible; 
that  the  Prophet  Samuel,  after  he  had  written  the  Book  of  Judges, 
composed  this  as  a  supplement,  in  order  to  describe  the  descent  of 
David,  whom  he  had  anointed  king,  and  to  remind  him  of  the  noble 
simplicity  of  the  morals  of  his  ancestors.  .  .  .  And  as  the  Psalter  of 
David  stood  at  the  beginning  of  the  Hagiographa,  the  Book  of  Ruth 
was  prefixed  to  it  as  a  prologue  for  the  glorification  of  David."3 


CHAPTER   XXXIV. 

THE    BOOKS    OF    SAMUEL. 

two  Books  of  Samuel,  doubtless,  originally  formed  but  one* 
and  took  the  name  of  Samuel  from  his  being  the  chief  character 
in  the  first  part  of  the  history.  In  the  Septuagint  they  form  the  first 
two  of  the  four  Books  of  Kings.  From  their  character  it  is  quite 
evident  that  they  must  be  separated  from  the  two  Books  of  Kings  in 
respect  to  date  and  authorship. 

The  books   may  be   divided  into  three  sections  :  the  first  em 
bracing  the  period  of  the  administration  of  the  Prophet  MaybedlvMed 
Samuel  (i  Sam.  i-xii) ;  the  second   containing  the  his-  info  three  soo- 
tory  of  the  reign  of  Saul  (chaps,  xiii-xxxi)  ;  the  third  tt 
containing  the  reign  of  David  (2  Sam.  i-xxiv). 

'Cosmos,  voL  ii,  415.  'Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  62,  63. 

*  In  the  time  of  Origen  they  constituted  one  book  among  the  Hebrews.    In  Ense-, 
bius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  25. 


278  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  STUDY 


DATE   AND  AUTHORSHIP. 

The  two  Books  of  Samuel  end  with  the  last  political  act  of  David, 
the  numbering  of  the  people.  The  Book  of  Kings  opens  with  the 
statement  that  "  David  was  old  and  stricken  in  years,"  and  bears 
no  necessary  connexion  with  those  preceding  it.  We  have  straight 
way  an  account  of  the  installation  of  Solomon  as  king.  Thus  the 
two  Books  of  Samuel  end  with  the  official  life  of  David,  to  which 
point  of  time  the  historian  brings  down  his  narrative. 

These  books  do  not  appear  to  be  compiled  from  preceding  ones, 
and  nowhere  in  them  is  there  any  reference  to  other  historical 
works,1 — quite  unlike  the  two  Books  of  Kings,  in  which  we  find  it 
stated,  "  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon,  and  all  that  he  did, 
and  his  wisdom,  are  they  not  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solo 
mon  ?  "  (i  Kings  xi,  41.)  "  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Rehoboam, 
and  all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Chron 
icles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  ?  "  (i  Kings  xiv,  29.)  Besides  these  ref 
erences  we  find  nine  others  in  i  Kings,  and  many  such  references  in 
2  Kings.  These  facts  separate  the  two  Books  of  Samuel  from  those 
of  Kings. 

Nowhere  in  Samuel  is  there  any  reference  to  the  Babylonian  cap- 
written  before  tivity*  or»  indeed,  to  the  removal  of  the  ten  tribes  by 
the  revolt  of  Shalmaneser,  nor  even  to  the  separation  of  the  ten  tribes 
tno  ten  tribes.  ffom  judah  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Rehoboam, 
the  successor  of  Solomon. 

That  we  find  in  i  Kings  ii,  27-35  references  to  prophetic  declara 
tions  recorded  in  i  Sam.  ii,  31-35,  iii,  11-14,  2  Sam.  iii,  27-29, 
and  that  in  i  Kings  viii,  17-20  we  find  Solomon  speaking  of  God's 
declaration  to  David  respecting  a  temple  to  be  built  by  his  son,  re 
lated  in  2  Sam.  vii,  furnishes  no  proof  that  the  original  history  em 
braced  a  portion  of  i  Kings,  on  which  Bleek  lays  some  stress.  That 
predictions  are  recorded  by  one  writer,  and  their  fulfillment  by 
another,  presents  no  difficulty  except  to  those  who  have  no  faith  in 
divine  inspiration.  The  phrase  "  unto  this  day,"  occurring  in  vari 
ous  places  (as  i  Sam.  v,  5,  xxx,  25,  2  Sam.  vi,  8),  does  not  neces 
sarily  imply  a  long  period  of  time  between  the  events  and  the 
recording  of  them. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  books  that  points  to  a  period  later  than 
the  first  part  of  the  reign  of  Solomon,  or  the  close  of  that  of  David. 
In  this  connexion  the  two  following  passages  are  to  be  considered : 
"  Beforetime  in  Israel,  when  a  man  went  to  inquire  of  God,  thus  he 
spake,  Come  and  let  us  go  to  the  seer ;  for  he  that  is  now  called  a 
*The  exception  is  a  single  reference  to  the  Book  of  Jashar,  2  Sam.  i,  18. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  279 

prophet  was  beforetime  called  a  seer  "  (i  Sam.  ix,  9).  "  Then  Achish 
gave  him  (David)  Ziklag  that  day  ;  wherefore  Ziklag  pertaineth  unto 
the  kings  of  Judah  unto  this  day  "  (chapter  xxvii,  6).  The  first 
of  these  passages  affords  no  proof  that  the  writer  lived  later  than 
the  age  of  David.  In  i  Sam.  ix,  19  Samuel  calls  himself  a  seer; 
but  Nathan,  a  messenger  of  God  contemporary  with  David,  is 
called  a  prophet  (N'^J)  (2  Sam.  vii,  2) ;  and  in  the  superscription  to 
Psalm  li.  Gad,  another  contemporary  with  David,  is  also  called  a 
prophet  (K'3J)  (i  Sam.  xxii,  5).  The  second  of  these  passages, 
respecting  Ziklag,  has  been  thought  to  indicate  that  the  writer 
lived  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Rehoboam  (about  B.  C.  975), 
in  whose  time  the  ten  tribes  revolted.  Both  the  Septuagint  and 
the  Peshito-Syriac  read  :  "  Pertaineth  to  the  king  (not  kings)  of  Ju 
dah,"  which  might  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  David.  But 
if  we  abide  by  the  Hebrew  reading,  the  passage  could  have  been 
written  in  the  beginning  of  Solomon's  reign  ;  for  we  are  under 
no  necessity  of  supposing  that  there  is  a  reference  in  the  passage 
to  the  division  of  the  Israelites  after  the  time  of  Solomon  into  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  and  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  sacred  histo 
rian  states  that  Achish,  the  Philistine  king,  gave  Ziklag  to  David, 
which,  though  situated  within  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  after 
wards  assigned  to  Simeon  (Josh,  xix,  5),  had  not  yet  been  possessed 
by  either  of  these  tribes.  When  David  received  the  town  he  had 
been  already  anointed  king,  and  he  reigned  "  over  the  house  of  Ju 
dah  "  seven  years  and  six  months.  The  distinction  between  Israel 
and  Judah  already  existed  in  his  time,  and  grew  out  of  the  fact  that 
David  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  over  which  alone  he  had  first 
ruled  seven  years  and  a  half,  during  a  part  of  which  time  Ish- 
bosheth,  the  son  of  Saul,  reigned  over  Israel.  Even  Schrader1  re 
marks,  "  The  designation  of  collective  Israel  as  ISRAEL  and  JUDAH 
(i  Sam.  xviii,  16,  2  Sam.  xxiv,  i),  seems  to  belong  to  the  time  of 
David  (Davidisch)."  It  is,  indeed,  possible  that  the  passage  re 
specting  Ziklag's  pertaining  to  the  kings  of  Judah  unto  this  day  may 
be  a  later  addition  to  the  original  text. 

The  passage,  "  she  had  on  a  long  tunic,  for  thus  do  the  virgin 
daughters  of  the  king  wear  (future,  are  accustomed  to  wear)  robes  " 
(2  Sam.  xiii,  18),  affords  no  proof  whatever  of  a  long  time  interven 
ing  between  the  event  and  its  recording. 

Ewald  places  the  composition  of  the  books  twenty  or  thirty  years 
after  the  death  of  Solomon,  and  Bleek a  at  a  somewhat  later  period, 
while  Davidson  *  prefers  the  reign  of  Asa,  B.  C.  940.  It  is  natural 

1  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  346.  *  Einl.,  p.  363.  '  Intro.,  vol.  i,  p.  528. 


280  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

for  us  to  expect  some  reference  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles  to  the 
Books  of  Samuel  in  respect  to  the  sources  of  the  history  of  David, 
and  such  reference  there  seems  to  be  in  i  Chron.  xxix,  29 :  "  Now 
the  acts  of  David  the  king,  first  and  last,  behold,  they  are  written  in 
the  Book  of  Samuel  the  Seer,  and  in  the  Book  of  Nathan  the  Proph 
et,  and  in  the  Book  of  Gad  the  Seer."  Samuel,  it  seems,  wrote  the 
history  of  his  own  times,  and  so  did  Nathan  and  Gad  afterwards. 
Nathan,  it  is  probable,  survived  David ;  at  least,  he  is  mentioned  in 
the  first  chapter  of  i  Kings. 

It  seems  not  improbable  that  Nathan  wrote  the  two  Books  of  Sam 
•me    Pro  net  ue^*    ^e  was  a  contemP°rarv  of  Gad  the^prophet,  though 
Nathan  proba-  younger,  it  would  seem,  and  there  was  no  good  reason 
Wj  the  author.    why  he  should  make  any  use  of  what  Gad  wrote       Thg 

history  of  the  time  of  Samuel  he  could  have  learned  from  the  writings 
of  Samuel,  or  from  those  who  were  still  living  and  had  participated 
in  the  events  described  in  the  first  part  of  the  book.  On  this  sup 
position  the  work  was  written  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  David  or 
at  the  beginning  of  that  of  Solomon.  It  bears  no  marks  of  having 
been  made  up  from  the  united  writings  of  Samuel,  Nathan,  and  Gad  ; 
yet  in  such  case  it  would  carry  with  it  high  authority. 

According  to  the  Talmud,  Samuel  wrote  the  work  as  far  as  the 
account  of  his  death.  The  rest  of  i  Samuel,  and  the  whole  of  2  Sam 
uel,  were  written  by  Gad  the  seer  and  Nathan  the  prophet.1 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  HISTORY. 

The  history  is  distinguished  by  simplicity,  minuteness,  and  every 
indication  of  fairness  and  truth.  Its  three  great  characters,  Samuel, 
Saul,  and  David,  stand  before  us  as  real  personages.  In  Samuel 
we  see  the  faithful,  blameless  servant  of  Jehovah,  possessing  great 
power,  yet  never  using  it  for  his  own  selfish  purposes.  Saul  every 
where  appears  as  the  fickle,  rash  king,  always  sinning  and  always  re 
penting  :  David  as  a  valiant  warrior  and  just  monarch,  whose  soul 
can  always  be  touched  with  pity,  especially  toward  Saul  and  his 
house. 

Dr.  Davidson,  while  acknowledging  that  the  history  in  these  books 
Theopinionsof  "  has  the  stamp  of  truth  upon  it,"  nevertheless  finds  con- 
tradictions  in  it ;  and  in  2  Sam.  xxi-xxiv,  he  thinks  there 
is  an  historical  basis,  "  altered  and  enlarged  by  the  addi 
tion  of  legendary,  miraculous,  and  improbable  circumstances.'" 
Here,  again,  his  aversion  to  the  supernatural  appears ;  whatever 
has  that  appearance  must  be  banished  to  the  region  of  myths!  As 

1  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon.  p.  13.  *  Vol.  i,  p.  521. 


OF  THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  281 

far  as  improbabilities  are  concerned,  how  many  events  of  the  most 
improbable  character  occur  everywhere  in  profane  history  ! 

"  The  narrative,"  says  De  Wette,  "  in  the  second  book  especially, 
bears  a  genuine  historical  stamp,  and  is  drawn,  if  not  from  contempo 
rary  memorials,  yet  from  a  very  lively  and  faithful  (only  here  and 
there  obscure  and  complicated)  oral  tradition,  which,  indeed,  rests 
partly  upon  memorials,  proverbs,  and  important  names.  With  the  ex 
ception  of  some  pieces  of  the  nature  of  Chronicles,  it  is  so  rich  in 
living  traits  of  character  and  descriptions,  that  in  this  respect  it  vies 
with  the  best  written  historical  compositions,  and  at  times  becomes 
biographical ;  the  natural  connexion  of  the  events  is  also  often  very 
satisfactory,  though  not  set  forth  with  sufficient  clearness."  '  Not 
withstanding  these  acknowledgments  of  the  high  historical  charac 
ter  of  these  books,  De  Wette  and  others  think  that  they  find  incon 
sistencies  and  contradictions  in  them.  These  we  shall  briefly  con 
sider  in  the  historical  order. 

In  i  Sam.  vii,  13  it  is  stated,  "So  the  Philistines  were  subdued, 
and  they  came  no  more  into  the  coast  (territories)  of  Is-  AUeffed 
rael ;  and  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  against  the  Philis-  traditions  ex- 
tines  all  the  days  of  Samuel."  It  has  been  objected  that  amlnedt 
this  is  inconsistent  with  the  language  of  chap,  ix,  16,  "that  he  [Saul] 
may  save  my  people  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Philistines :  for  I  have 
looked  upon  my  people,  because  their  cry  is  come  unto  me."  But 
the  former  statement,  that  the  Philistines  "came  no  more,"  obviously 
refers  to  the  period  of  Samuel's  life — official  life,  perhaps.  In  the 
eighth  chapter  Samuel  is  spoken  of  as  an  <?A/man,  and  it  is  said  that 
he  made  his  sons  judges,  and  that  their  conduct  was  bad.  After  this 
a  king  is  promised  who  will  deliver  the  people  of  Israel  from  the 
Philistines.  It  seems  that  the  inroads  of  the  Philistines  were  made 
during  the  administration  of  the  wicked  sons  of  Samuel.  The  state 
ments  are  sufficiently  exact,  except  to  a  hypercritical  spirit. 

That  Samuel,  in  accordance  with  a  divine  revelation,  should  anoint 
Saul  to  be  king  over  Israel  (i  Sam.  ix,  15-17),  has  been  considered 
inconsistent  with  his  being  chosen  by  lot  by  the  people,  who  had  de 
manded  a  king.  And,  indeed,  if  Samuel  had  not  been  directed  by  a 
divine  communication  in  anointing  Saul,  and  if  Providence  had  not 
controlled  the  lot  so  that  it  would  fall  upon  Saul,  the  whole  proceed 
ing  would  have  been  inconsistent  and  absurd.  As  God  had  acceded 
to  the  demand  of  the  people  to  have  a  king,  there  was  nothing  in  his 
making  the  selection  inconsistent  therewith.  All  this  is,  of  course, 
unsatisfactory  to  those  who  believe  that  no  divine  communication 
was  made  to  Samuel. 

4  In  Schrader's  De  Wette,  p.  335. 


282  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

In  i  Sam.  x,  9-12,  it  is  said  that  a  company  of  prophets  met  Saul, 
and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  fell  upon  him,  and  he  prophesied;  from 
which  it  became  a  proverb,  "Is  Saul  also  among  the  piophets?" 
But  upon  another  occasion  we  find  Saul  prophesying  before  Samuel, 
and  it  is  added,  "  Wherefore  they  say  (will  say,  are  accustomed  to  say), 
Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?  (i  Sam.  xix,  24.)  Here  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  the  judgment  of  the  writer  Saul  proph 
esied  for  the  first  time,  and  that  the  adage  then  arose.  If  he  proph 
esied  a  second  time,  as  the  history  shows,  it  was  quite  natural  that 
the  adage  should  be  repeated. 

In  i  Sam.  x,  8,  after  Samuel  has  anointed  Saul  to  be  king,  lie  tells 
Saul's  appoint-  him:  "And  thou  shalt  go  down  before  me  to  Gilgal ; 

STmuelVSl-  and  behold»  J  wil1  S°  down  unto  thee>  to  offer  bu™t 
?ai.  offerings,  and  to  sacrifice  sacrifices  of  peace  offerings : 

seven  days  shalt  thou  tarry,  till  I  come  to  thee,  and  show  thee  what 
thou  shalt  do."  After  this  Saul  is  chosen  by  lot  to  be  king,  and, 
being  sent  for  by  men  of  Jabesh-gilead,  east  of  the  Jordan,  to  aid 
them  against  the  Ammonites,  he  goes  to  their  help,  and  defeats  the 
Ammonites.  After  this  Samuel  says  to  the  people,  "Come  and  let  us 
go  to  Gilgal  to  renew  the  kingdom  there.  And  all  the  people  went  to 
Gilgal;  and  there  they  made  Saul  king  before  the  Lord  in  Gilgal; 
and  there  they  sacrificed  sacrifices  of  peace-offerings  before  the 
Lord  "  (chap,  xi,  14,  15).  It  is  very  evident  that  Samuel's  direction 
to  Saul  after  anointing  him,  to  go  down  to  Gilgal,  where  he  would 
make  offerings  and  tell  him  what  to  do,  has  reference  to  the  meeting 
just  mentioned,  where  Saul  was  made  king.  Nothing  is  said  respect 
ing  Saul's  going  first  to  Gilgal ;  this  was  not  necessary ;  but  if  he 
should  do  so,  he  was  to  tarry  for  Samuel  seven  days. 

In  the  face  of  these  facts  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  De  Wette  can 
make  the  following  passage  refer  to  chap,  x,  8 :  "  And  he  (Saul) 
tarried  seven  days,  according  to  the  set  time  that  Samuel  had  ap 
pointed  :  but  Samuel  came  not  to  Gilgal ;  and  the  people  were  scat 
tered  from  him  "  (chap,  xiii,  8).  When  this  appointment  was  made 
we  know  not ;  but  it  would  seem  that  seven  days  was  the  usual  time 
that  Saul  was  to  wait  for  Samuel.  Saul  had  collected  the  army  of 
the  Israelites  at  Gilgal,  and  the  Philistines  gathered  together  to  fight 
them.  This  was  two  years  after  Saul  had  been  made  king  (chap, 
xiii,  i),  and  can  have  no  reference  to  chap,  x,  8. 

While  waiting  for  Samuel  at  Gilgal  Saul  forces  himself  to  offer 
sacrifices,  for  which  he  is  censured  by  Samuel,  who  informs  him  that 
his  kingdom  shall  not  continue. 

In  the  fifteenth  chapter  Saul  is  sent  to  exterminate  the  Amalekites, 
but  failing  to  carry  out  fully  the  command,  the  word  of  the  Lord 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  283 

comes  to  Samuel :  "  It  repenteth  me  that  I  have  set  up  Saul  to  be 
king,  for  he  is  turned  back  from  following  me,"  etc.  (chap,  xv,  n). 
After  this  Samuel  tells  Saul :  "  For  thou  hast  rejected  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  hath  rejected  thee  from  being  king  over  Is 
rael  "  (ver.  26).  Here  there  is  no  inconsistency.  In  respect  to  the 
former  transgression  the  declaration  was,  ''Thy  kingdom  shall  not 
continue ;  "  while,  on  account  of  further  disobedience,  he  is  already 
rejected  from  being  king.  This  is  something  more  than  a  repetition. 

In  the  account  given  of  David's  going  forth  to  meet  Goliath,  it  is 
stated  that  Saul  inquired  of  Abner,  "  Whose  son  is  this  Saul's 
youth?"  and  that  Abner  replied,  "As  thy  soul  liveth,  ™?se 
O  king,  I  cannot  tell ;  "  and  that,  after  David  had  fe-  considered, 
turned  to  Saul  with  the  head  of  the  Philistine,  he  put  the  question  to 
him,  "Whose  son  art  thou?  "  to  which  he  replies,  "  I  am  the  son  of 
thy  servant  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite  (i  Sam.  xvii,  55-58).  As  the 
house  of  his  father  was  to  be  made  free  in  Israel,  it  was  important  to 
know  this.  It  has  been  considered  utterly  incredible  by  some  that 
Saul  should  not  have  known  whose  son  David  was,  when  he  had  al 
ready  played  before  him,  having  been  sent  to  him  by  Jesse  at  Saul's 
request. 

It  is  true  that  it  does  seem  singular  that  Saul,  under  the  circum 
stances,  should  not  have  known  David's  father.  But  it  may  be  ex 
plained  by  the  consideration  that  the  number  of  Saul's  officers,  ac 
quaintances,  and  visitors,  must  have  been  very  great,  and  that  it 
might  easily  have  happened  that  the  name  of  David's  father  had  es 
caped  him  at  the  time.  How  frequently  it  occurs  that  the  names  of 
persons  with  whom  we  are  acquainted  escape  the  memory  when  they 
have  been  some  time  absent  from  us.  How  many  governors  of  States 
remember  the  names  of  all  the  men  who  have  been  employed  near 
them,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Christian  names  of  their  fathers?  With  us, 
to  know  the  son  is  to  know  the  surname  of  the  father ;  but  with  Saul  it 
was  entirely  different.  Further,  Saul,  in  his  hypochondriacal  state, 
may  have  been  subject  to  remarkable  lapses  of  memory.  But,  if  we 
are  to  reject  every  thing  as  unhistorical  which  a  priori  was  improb 
able,  what  havoc  we  will  make  of  history !  How  long  David  re 
mained  with  Saul  on  his  first  visit  to  him  (i  Sam.  xvi,  21-23)  i*  is  im~ 
possible  to  say,  but  probably  it  was  but  for  a  short  time.  It  is  said 
that  he  became  Saul's  armour-bearer;  but  this  may  refer  to  what 
happened  subsequently  to  David's  fight  with  the  Philistine;  for  after 
that  event  it  is  said  that  "  Saul  took  him  that  day,  and  would  let  him 
go  no  more  home  to  his  father's  house  "  (chap,  xviii,  2).  In  the  ac 
count  of  David,  previous  to  his  fight  with  the  giant,  it  is  said,  in 
speaking  of  the  three  eldest  sons  of  Jesse  who  followed  Saul :  "  But 


284  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

David  went,  and  returned  from  Saul  to  feed  his  father's  sheep  at 
Bethlehem  "  (chap,  xvii,  15). 

The  Vatican  copy  of  the  Septuagint  omits  chaps,  xvii,  12-31,  55-58, 
and  xviii,  1-5.  This  would  lemove  all  difficulty  by  the  omission 
of  the  passage  expressing  Saul's  ignorance  of  the  name  of  David  s 
father.  But  we  have  no  sufficient  authority  for  the  rejection  of  the 
passages  omitted  in  the  Vatican  copy  of  the  LXX,  as  they  are  found 
in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  and  in  the  Targum.  That  Saul  on 
two  different  occasions  (i  Sam.  xviii,  10,  n,  xix,  10)  hurled  a  jav 
elin  at  David,  has  in  it  nothing  strange  ;  certainly  nothing  to  lead 
us  to  infer  that  it  is  the  same  event  twice  related. 

In  chap,  xix,  2  Jonathan  informs  David  of  Saul's  intention  to  kill 
aiie  ed  n^m »  ^ut:  *n  cnaP*  xx>  x>  2>  when  David  declares  that 
contradictions  Saul  is  seeking  his  life,  Jonathan  says :  "  God  forbid ; 
thou  shalt  not  die  :  behold,  my  father  will  do  nothing, 
either  great  or  small,  but  that  he  will  show  it  me."  These  passages 
De  Wette  regards  as  contradictory.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  after  Jonathan  had  communicated  to  David  Saul's  intention  to 
kill  him,  he  remonstrated  with  his  father  against  such  an  act,  and 
Saul  swore  that  David  should  not  be  slain.  It  is  true  that  after  this, 
when  the  evil  spirit  comes  upon  Saul,  he  again  attempts  to  kill  Da 
vid,  but  David  escapes  from  him.  Again  Jonathan,  in  the  second 
instance,  does  not  express  himself  very  confidently,  but  declares 
his  intention  to  sound  his  father,  and  to  communicate  the  result 
to  David.  Jonathan  would  naturally  have  as  good  an  opinion  as 
possible  of  his  father,  and  think  that,  notwithstanding  his  bad  con 
duct,  he  would  yet,  in  his  better  moments,  have  some  regard  for  his 
oath.  But  suppose  the  two  passages  contain  inconsistent  senti 
ments — is  the  same  man  always  consistent  with  himself? 

In  i  Sam.  xxi,  10-15  ;  xxii,  i,  it  is  said  that  David,  for  fear  of  Saul, 
fled  to  King  Achish  of  Gath ;  but  that,  becoming  alarmed  when  his 
warlike  deeds  were  known  to  the  king,  he  changed  his  behaviour  and 
feigned  madness,  and  left,  with  the  king's  decided  approval.  The 
superscription  of  the  thirty-fourth  Psalm  confirms  this  :  "  A  psalm  of 
David  when  he  changed  his  behaviour  before  Abimelech,  who  drove 
him  away,  and  he  departed."  But  after  this,  perhaps  about  four 
years,  David,  with  six  hundred  men  and  their  families,  goes  to 
Achish,  king  of  Gath,  who  gives  him  Ziklag  in  which  to  dwell  (chap, 
xxvii).  Why  cannot  both  of  these  events  be  true  ?  In  the  first 
instance  it  seems  he  was  alone,  and  became  alarmed ;  he  afterwards 
took  courage  and  went  with  his  six  hundred  men.  Who  that  should 
read  of  an  individual  or  of  a  company  of  soldiers  playing  the  coward 
one  day  in  battle,  but  on  another  occasion  acting  with  bravery, 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  285 

would  ever  imagine  a  contradiction  or  absurdity  in  the  state 
ments  ? 

In  chap,  xxiv  Saul,  in  seeking  David  in  the  wilderness  of  Engedi, 
goes  into  a  cave  in  which  David  lies  concealed,  and  his  skirt  is  cut 
off  by  the  latter.  This  is  an  entirely  different  event  from  that 
described  in  chap,  xxvi,  where  Saul,  seeking  David  in  the  wilderness 
of  Ziph,  encamps  and  goes  to  sleep  with  a  spear  stuck  by  his  pillow, 
which  spear  David  carries  away. 

The  death  of  Samuel  is  twice  related  in  nearly  the  same  words, 
(i  Sam.  xxv,  i,  xxviii,  3).  But  the  second  statement,  that  he  was 
dead,  is  required,  or,  at  least,  is  made  appropriate,  by  the  account 
that  follows — of  the  raising  of  Samuel  by  the  witch  of  Endor. 

In  z  Sam.  iii,  14  David  says  :  "  Deliver  me  my  wife  Michal, 
which  I  espoused  to  me  for  a  hundred  foreskins  of  the  Philistines." 
This  does  not  contradict  what  is  in  i  Sam.  xviii,  27,  that  David 
brought  two  hundred  foreskins  of  the  Philistines  to  Saul  for  Michal, 
for  the  contract  which  Saul  made  with  him  was  to  bring  one  hundred 
foreskins  of  the  Philistines  (i  Sam.  xviii,  25).  David  modestly  names 
the  smaller  number. 

Dr.  Davidson  finds  a  contradiction  between  i  Sam.  xv,  35  :  "  And 
Samuel  came  no  more  to  see  Saul  until  the  day  of  his  death,"  and 
i  Sam.  xix,  24:  "And  he  (Saul)  prophesied  before  Samuel."  The 
first  of  these  passages  Davidson  renders :  "  Samuel  did  not  see  Saul 
again  till  the  day  of  his  death."1  But  the  proper  rendering  of  n&n, 

raah,  in  this  passage  is,  to  visit,  to  go  to  see,  one  of  the  meanings 
given  by  Gesenius  —  so  the  passage  should  be  rendered,  "And 
Samuel  visited  Saul  no  more  till  the  day  of  his  death,"  which  is  not 
contradicted  by  what  is  said  of  Saul's  prophesying  in  the  presence 
of  Samuel,  for  in  that  case  Saul  sought  Samuel. 

Dr.  Davidson  finds  a  contradiction  in  the  lists  of  Saul's  sons.  In 
i  Sam.  xiv,  49  we  have  Jonathan,  Ishui,  and  Melchi-shua;  but  in 
chap,  xxxi,  2  it  is  stated  that  the  Philistines  slew  Jonathan,  Abin- 
adab,  and  Melchi-shua.  But  it  seems  best  to  suppose  that  the  first 
list  gives  the  sons  of  Saul  at  an  earlier  period  of  his  reign,  and  that 
Abinadab  was  born  afterwards.  Ishui  is  probably  the  same  who  was 
afterward  called  Ishbosheth  (man  of  shame],  who  alone  of  Saul's 
sons  escaped  death  when  the  others  were  slain,  and  who  ruled  two 
years  over  eleven  tribes  in  opposition  to  David 

'Vol.  i,  p.  513. 


28Q  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 


CHAPTER   XXXV. 

THE    TWO    BOOKS    OF    KINGS. 

HTHE  two  Books  of  Kings,  originally  constituting  but  one1  book,  arc 
•*•  so  named  from  their  embracing  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah.  They  cover  a  period  of  about  four  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  from  the  accession  of  Solomon  to  the  throne  of  Israel  to  the 
thirty-seventh  year  of  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

The  whole  history  may  be  divided  into  three  periods.  The  first 
The  history  emt>races  the  reign  of  Solomon  over  a  united  Israel 
divisible  into  (i  Kings  i-xi).  The  second  contains  the  history  of  the 
3ds'  two  separate  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  of  Israel,  from  the 
revolt  of  the  ten  tribes  in  the  time  of  Rehoboam  until  these  tribes 
were  carried  away  captive  beyond  the  Euphrates  by  Shalmaneser, 
king  of  Assyria  (i  Kings  xii-xxii ;  2  Kings  i-xvii).  The  third  pe 
riod  embraces  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  from  the  time 
of  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes  to  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  the 
captivity  of  Jehoiachin,  king  of  Judah,  at  Babylon,  about  B.C.  562 
(2  Kings  xviii-xxv). 

SOURCES  AND  TIME  OF  THEIR  COMPOSITION. 

The  history  everywhere  refers  to  written  documents,  which  were, 
doubtless,  used  by  the  author  in  the  compilation  of  his  work.  At 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Solomon  it  is  said:  "And  the  rest  of  the  acts 
of  Solomon,  and  all  that  he  did,  and  his  wisdom,  are  they  not  written 
in  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon  ?  "  (i  Kings  xi,  41.)  In  the  sub 
sequent  part  of  the  history,  after  the  Israelites  had  been  divided  into 
the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah,  we  have  references  both  to  "  The 
Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel,"  and  "  The  Book  of 
the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah."  There  are  eighteen  references 
to  the  former  book,  and  fifteen  to  the  latter. 

Here  the  question  arises,  Were  these  books  "  of  Chronicles,"  to 
which  reference  is  made,  records  written  during  the  reigns  of  the 

kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  or  were  they  historical  works 
Were  these  .  .  J  J 

books  contem-  written  by  two  private  individuals  at  a  late  period  of 

OT^pnedtt  the  Hebrew  monarchy  ?     The  last  mention  of  "  The 
a  late  period?     Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  "  occurs 

•  'Origen  in  Euseb.  Eccles.  Hist.,  book  vi,  25. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  287 

(2  Kings  xxiv,  5)  in  reference  to  Jehoiakim  (about  B  C.  600),  so 
that,  on  the  supposition  that,  "The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the 
Kings  of  Judah  "  was  the  work  of  a  later  writer,  he  must  have  lived 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  But  this  is  inad 
missible,  as  there  are  indications  in  the  Books  of  Kings  that  they  are 
composed  of  documents  written  at  an  early  period. 

In  reference  to  the  remnant  of  the  people  of  the  Amorites,  Hit- 
tites,  Perizzites,  Hivites,  and  Jebusites,  it  is  said :  "  Upon  these  did 
Solomon  levy  a  tribute  of  bond-service  unto  this  day"  (i  Kings 
ix,  21).  Here  we  have  reference  to  a  state  of  affairs,  existing  in  the 
time  of  Solomon,  hardly  applicable  to  the  divided  kingdoms  of  Judah 
and  Israel,  and  certainly  inappropriate  when  the  ten  tribes  had  been 
removed,  and  the  remnant  of  the  Canaanites  in  their  territory  were 
no  longer  tributary  to  them.  Again,  in  reference  to  the  separation 
of  the  ten  tribes  from  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  it  is  said : 
"  So  Israel  rebelled  against  the  house  of  David  unto  this  day  " 
(i  Kings  xii,  19).  It  is  evident  that  this  was  written  before  the  ten 
tribes  were  carried  away  captive  by  Shalmaneser,  since  the  language 
was  no  longer  applicable  after  that  event. 

Respecting  the  defection  of  the  Edomites,  it  is  stated :  "  Edom 
revolted  from  under  the  hand  of  Judah  unto  this  day  "  (2  Kings 
viii,  22).  It  is  evident  that  this  was  written  before  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  otherwise  the  language  would  be  inappropriate,  as  Judah 
was  then  carried  away  captive. 

In  the  description  of  Solomon's  temple  occurs  the  following: 
"  And  they  drew  out  the  staves,  that  the  ends  of  the  staves  were 
seen  out  in  the  holy  place  before  the  oracle,  and  they  were  not 
seen  without :  and  there  they  are  unto  this  day "  (i  Kings  viii,  8). 
But  this  language  could  not  be  used  respecting  the  staves  of  the 
ark  when  the  temple  had  been  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  all  its  sacred  utensils  had  been  removed;  so  that  here,  also, 
we  have  proof  that  the  account  was  written  before  the  Babylonian 
captivity. 

As  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings  lived  during  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  he  would  have  made 
some  change  in  passages  no  longer  applicable  to  the  condition  of 
the  people  in  his  time.  But  this  he  did  not  deem  necessary,  as  the 
altered  circumstances  were  well  known,  and  were  not  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  demand  that  he  should  change  the  language  of  the 
original  documents. 

We  cannot  doubt  that  "  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles1  of  the  Kings 
of  Judah,"  and  "  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel," 

Book  of  the  A  fairs  of  the  Days  of  the  Kings. 


288  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

were  the  annals  of  the  respective  kings  of  the  two  kingdoms,  written 
down  for  the  most  part  during  the  reign  of  each  king.  Such  annalg 
are  referred  to  in  the  book  of  Esther  as  being  kept  in  the  kingdom 
of  Persia :  "  He  (Ahasuerus)  commanded  to  bring  the  book  of  the 
records  of  the  Chronicles"  (chap,  vi,  i).  When  these  were  read, 
there  was  found  recorded  an  important  event  in  the  reign  of  this 
very  king. 

Among  the  Hebrews  we  first  find  mention  of  a  recorder  in  2  Sam. 

viii,  16,  where  it  is  stated  that  in  the  time  of  David,  "Te- 
Flrst    mention 

cf  a  recorder  hoshaphat  the  son  of  Ahilud  v/as  recorder."  Mention 
or  annalist.  i  i  <-  •>  •  •  n  •.  •  -,*•• 

is  also  made  of  him  in  2  Sam.  xx,  24,  and  in  i  Kings 

iv,  3.  The  same  office  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  was  held  by  Joah 
the  son  of  Asaph  (2  Kings  xviii,  18,  37  ;  Isaiah  xxxvi,  3),  and  in  the 
time  of  Josiah  by  Joah,  the  son  of  Jehoaz  (2  Chron.  xxxiv,  8).  Ge- 
senius  defines  the  word  T3ra,  mazkir,  (recorder,  in  English  version), 
"  a  recorder,  register,  i.  q.,  historiographer,  the  king's  annalist,  whose 
duty  it  was  to  record  the  deeds  of  the  king  and  the  events  of  his 
reign.  .  .  .  The  same  office  is  mentioned  as  existing  in  the  Persian 
court,  both  ancient  and  modern  "  (Heb.  Lex.). 

It  is  true,  we  do  not  find  any  mention  of  a  recorder  in  the  kingdom 
of  Israel,  yet  it  is  probable  that  the  Israelites  would  have  such  an 
officer.  But,  independently  of  this,  the  history  of  Israel  is  so  closely 
interwoven  with  that  of  Judah,  that  the  historiographer  of  the  latter 
kingdom  would  necessarily  record  a  great  deal  of  what  occurred  in 
the  kingdom  of  Israel. 

Bleek  does  not  favour  the  view  that  the  Books  of  Kings  were  com- 
viewsofBieek  Posed  from  the  annals  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel, 
schrader,  and  written  during  their  reigns.  "  To  me  it  is  very  prob- 
Davidson.  able,"  says  he,  "  that  what  is  cited  under  the  titles  of 
The  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  was 
a  larger  work,  which,  for  the  most  part,  was  not  composed  till  a  later 
period,  and  written  at  once'' 1  This  view  has  nothing  in  its  favour,  and 
must  be  altogether  rejected,  as  it  is  contradicted  by  the  facts  of  the 
case.  Schrader,2  while  he  supposes  that  the  annals  were  used  by 
the  composer  of  the  Book  of  Kings  in  an  edition  not  finished  before 
the  death  of  Jehoiakim  (2  Kings  xxiv,  5),  about  B.  C.  600,  acknowl 
edges  that  "  it  is  very  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  a  series  of  chap 
ters  in  them  were  written  far  earlier." 

Dr.  Davidson  regards  the  work  quoted  by  the  author  of  Kings  as 
"made  up,  not  long  before  the  downfall  of  Judah,  of  materials  and 
monographs  which  had  accumulated  in  the  progress  of  time.  It  be 
gan  before  the  commencement  of  the  two  kingdoms,  and  narrated 
•Einleitung,  p.  371.  'In  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  p.  357. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  289 

more  or  less  fully  the  public  acts  of  the  kings  and  other  leading  per 
sonages.  It  was  neither  complete,  nor  alike  valuable  in  all  its  parts. 
Another  source  was  oral  tradition."  '  We  have  no  reason  to  believe 
that  oral  tradition  was  an  element  in  the  composition  of  the  Books 
of  Kings.  Are  we  to  suppose  that  trustworthy  traditions  of  events 
unimportant,  or  even  any  tradition  at  all,  existed  centuries  after  the 
events  occurred  ?  It  is  a  convenient  way  to  get  rid  of  the  super 
natural  to  suppose  that  all  accounts  of  that  nature  have  their  origin 
in  traditional  elements  incorporated  into  real,  sober  history. 

We,  indeed,  find  in  the  Books  of  Kings  events  that  are  not  of  a 
political  character,  but  which  belong  to  the  theocracy,  and  accord 
ingly  have  a  suitable  place  in  the  annals  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and 
Israel;  and  we  are,  therefore,  under  no  necessity  of  seeking  outside 
of  these  annals  the  sources  of  the  history  in  the  Books  of  Kings. 

The  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings  wrote,  it  would  seem,  or  at  least 
finished  his  history,  in  the  second  half  of  the  Babylo-  probably  writ- 
nian  captivity,  as  he  states  that  Evil-merodach,  king  of  ten  in  tbe  sec~ 
Babylon,  lifted  up  the  head  of  Jehoiachin,  king  of  Judah,   Babylonian 
out  of  prison,  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  his  captivity,   Wttftty. 
treated  him  kindly,  and  supported  him  all  his  life   (2  Kings  xxv, 
27-30).     As  no  mention  is  made  of  the  close  of  the  captivity,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  that  event  had  not  yet  occurred  when  the 
author  wrote. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  who  was  the  author  of  the  two  Books  of 
Kings.  Ancient  Jewish  tradition3  attributed  them  to  The  author  un- 
the  prophet  Jeremiah,  which  reference  is  followed  by  known. 
most  of  the  rabbies,  and  many  of  the  earlier  Christian  theologians, 
and  has  been  adopted  by  Havernick,  but  rejected  by  Bleek,  Da 
vidson,  and  Keil.  It  is  not,  indeed,  probable  that  Jeremiah  was 
alive  when  the  incidents  occurred  which  are  recorded  at  the  close 
of  the  book,  where  it  is  stated  that  Jehoiachin  was  taken  out  of 
prison  at  Babylon  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  his  captivity,  and 
supported  all  his  life  by  Evil-merodach  (2  Kings  xxv,  27-30),  for  at 
this  time  Jeremiah  would  have  been  about  ninety  years  of  age.  The 
peculiar  phraseology  employed  in  the  Books  of  Kings  nowhere  oc 
curs  in  Jeremiah.  We,  indeed,  find  that  the  history  of  the  capture 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxiv,  18-20,  xxv),  is 
nearly  verbatim  with  that  of  Jer.  lii.  But  this  last  chapter  of  Jere 
miah  was  not  written  by  him,  for  at  the  close  of  chap,  li  it  is  added, 
"Thus  far  are  the  words  of  Jeremiah."  It  was  probably  inserted 
from  the  last  book  of  2  Kings.  The  author  of  these  books  doubt- 

1  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p.  34. 

*Baba  Batra,  15  a,  in  Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  14. 

VOL.  I. — 19 


290  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

less  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah.  He  was  evidently  a  pious 
man,  and  zealous  for  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  and  probably  en 
dowed  with  the  prophetic  spirit. 

CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY  IN  THE  BOOKS    OF  KINGS. 

The  history  is  distinguished  for  its  fidelity  and  impartiality,  which 
are  stamped  on  every  page.  Kings  and  the  great  men  of  Hebrew 
history  are  weighed  in  the  impartial  balances  of  the  divine  law, 
and  justified  or  condemned  according  to  their  deeds.  What  but 
the  stern  love  of  truth  and  justice  could  have  induced  the  sacred 
historian  to  describe  the  great  crime  of  David  and  the  apostasy 
of  Solomon,  two  of  their  mightiest  monarchs  ? 

As  the  history  was  derived  from  contemporary  annals,  it  rests 
upon  the  surest  basis  of  truth,  and  is  acknowledged  by  skeptical 
writers  to  be  credible  in  a  very  high  degree.  "  The  genuine  char 
acter  of  the  books  is  well  attested  by  internal  evidence.  .  .  .  Though 
the  history  is  compendious  and  extract-like,  it  bears  on  its  face  the 
stamp  of  fidelity."1 

A  considerable  number  of  the  events  recorded  in  these  books  re- 
Conflrmations  ceive  confirmation  from  monumental  sources.  The 
of  the  Books  famous  Moabite  stone  discovered  at  Dhiban,  east  of  the 

Of   Kings  from      T,  .  0  ^  o     t_        T-»  n  r        ^r^     •  •       ' 

ancient  monu-  Jordan,  in  1 868,  by  Rev.  Mr.  Klein,  contains  an  inscrip- 
ments.  t{on  jn  Hebrew  showing  that  it  was  erected  about  B.  C. 

900,  by  Mesha,  king  of  Moab,  in  commemoration  of  his  deliverance 
from  the  Israelites.  In  2  Sam.  viii,  2  it  is  stated  that  David  smote 
Moab,  and  that  the  Moabites  became  his  servants,  and  brought 
gifts.  How  long  this  servitude  lasted  it  is  impossible  to  say,  though 
it  is  probable  that  it  ceased  immediately  after  the  separation  of  the 
ten  tribes  from  Judah.  It  is  certain  that  some  time  after  this  event 
Moab  came  under  the  dominion  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  for  it  is  stated 
in  2  Kings  i,  i,  "Then  Moab  rebelled  against  Israel  after  the  death 
of  Ahab."  We  have  also  the  further  statement :  "And  Mesha  king 
of  Moab  was  a  sheepmaster,  and  rendered  unto  the  king  of  Israel  a 
hundred  thousand  lambs,  and  a  hundred  thousand  rams,  with  the 
wool.  But  it  came  to  pass,  when  Ahab  was  dead,  that  the  king  of 
Moab  rebelled  against  the  king  of  Israel  "  (2  Kings  iii,  4,  5).  After 
this  statement  we  have  an  account  of  the  attempt  of  Jehoram,  king 
of  Israel,  and  successor  to  Ahab,  to  subdue  Moab.  For  this  pur 
pose  he  united  with  the  king  of  Judah  and  the  king  of  Edom.  At 
first  the  Moabites  were  defeated,  and  the  king  of  Moab,  in  his  distress, 
offered  his  eldest  son,  who  was  to  succeed  him,  as  a  burnt  offering 
upon  the  wall.  Upon  this  event  the  Israelites  returned  to  their  own 
1  Dr.  Davidson,  vol.  ii,  pp.  39,  40. 


OF  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  291 

land,  and  there  was  great  indignation  against  them  (2  Kings  iii). 
After  this,  it  seems,  the  Moabites  became  independent.  In  com 
memoration  of  the  deliverance  of  Moab,  Mesha  dedicated  to  the 
god  Chemosh  the  celebrated  stone  on  which  were  inscribed  his  re 
markable  achievements,  of  which  we  give  the  following :  "  I,  Mesha, 
am  sor  of  Chemoshgad,  king  of  Moab,  the  Dibonite.  Thelnscrlpt{on 
My  father  reigned  over  Moab  thirty  years,  and  I  reigned  on  the  Moawte 
after  my  father.  And  I  erected  this  stone  to  Chemosh 
at  Korcha,  [a  stone  of  sajlvation,  for  he  saved  me  from  all  despoilers, 
and  let  me  see  my  desire  upon  all  my  enemies.  Now  Om[r]i,  king 
of  Israel,  he  oppressed  Moab  many  days,  for  Chemosh  was  angry  with 
his  l[a]nd.  His  son  succeeded  him,  and  he  also  said,  I  will  oppress 
Moab.  In  my  days  he  said,  [let  us  go],  and  I  will  see  my  desire  on 
him  and  his  house,  and  Israel  said,  I  shall  destroy  it  forever.  Now 
Omri  took  the  land  Medeba,  and  [the  enemy]  occupied  it  [in  his 
days,  and  in]  the  days  of  his  son,  forty  years.  And  Chemosh  [had 
mercy]  on  it  in  my  days ;  and  I  built  Baal-meon,  and  made  therein 
the  ditch,  and  I  [built]  Kirjathaim,  for  the  men  of  Gad  dwelt  in 
the  land  [Atar]oth  from  of  old,  and  the  k[ing  of  I]srael  fortified 
A[t]aroth,  and  I  assaulted  the  wall  and  captured  it."  Mesha  speaks 
also  of  capturing  Nebo  :  "And  I  took  from  it  [the  ves]sels  of  Jeho 
vah  and  offered  them  before  Chemosh."  l 

On  this  monument  are  found  the  following  names,  which  also  oc 
cur  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures :  Jehovah,  Chemosh  (the  national  god 
of  the  Moabites),  Mesha,  Omri,  Moab,  Gad,  Israel,  Medeba,  Ataroth, 
Dibon,  Baal-meon,  Nebo,  Jahaz,  Beth-diblathaim,  Aroer,  Horonaim, 
and  Kirjathaim. 

This  shows  a  remarkable  confirmation  of  the  Scripture  history,  and 
proves  that  the  names  we  have  in  the  Books  of  Kings  have  come  down 
to  us  in  their  integrity,  and  that  they  represent  real  persons  and 
places. 

The  monuments  of  Assyria,  also,  have  furnished  some  remarka 
ble  confirmations  of  the  history  in  these  books  :  "  Sa-  r 

Jm  Confirmations 

maria  is  known  to  the  Assyrians  for  some  centuries  from  Assyrian 
merely  as  Beth-Omri,  '  the  house  '  or  'city  of  Omri;  '  monuments- 
and  even  when  they  come  into  contact  with  Israelite  monarchs  of  the 
house  which  succeeded  Omri's  upon  the  throne,  they  still  regard  them 
as  descendants  of  the  great  chief,  whom  they  view,  perhaps,  as  the 
founder  of  the  kingdom.  Thus  the  Assyrian  records  agree  generally 
with  the  Hebrew  in  the  importance  which  they  assign  to  this  mon- 

1  From  the  inscription  on  the  Moabite  Stone,  as  translated  and  published  by  Chris 
tian  D.  Ginsburg,  LL.D.,  London,  1871.  Also  Schlottmann  and  others  have  trans 
lated  it. 


292  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE  STUDY 

arch,  and  especially  confirm  the  fact  (related  in  i  Kings  xvi,  24), 
that  he  was  the  founder  of  the  later  Israelite  metropolis,  Samaria." l 

"  Omri's  son  and  successor,  Ahab,  is  mentioned  by  name  in  an 
Assyrian  contemporary  inscription,  which,  agreeably  to  the  account 
given  in  the  First  Book  of  Kings  with  respect  to  the  place  of  his 
ordinary  residence  (i  Kings  xviii,  46;  xxi,  i,  2),  calls  him  'Ahab 
of  Jezreel*  .  .  .  Among  the  confederate  monarchs  with  whom  he 
leagued  himself  was  the  Damascene  king,  Benhadad,  whom  Script 
ure  also  makes  Ahab's  contemporary."11  "The  Assyrian  monument 
known  as  the  '  Black  Obelisk  '  contains  a  notice  of  the  Israelitish 
monarch,  Jehu,  and  another  of  the  Syrian  king  who  succeeded  Ben 
hadad,  Hazael."  The  reference  to  Jehu  on  the  Assyrian  monu 
ments  is  acknowledged  by  Schrader :  "  Tribute  of  Jehu,  son  of  Omri. 
The  reference  to  Jehu,  the  successor  of  the  rulers  of  the  house  of 
Omri,  is  secured  against  all  doubt  by  the  simultaneous  mention  of 
Hazael  (in  the  cuneiform  writing,  Chazailu)  of  Damascus." ' 

In  2  Kings  xv,  19  mention  is  made  of  the  invasion  of  the  land  of 

Mentioned  Israel  b?  "  Pul>  the  kinS  of  Assyria."  "Of  this  Pul," 
Mng  of  Assyria,  says  Rawlinson,  "  the  Assyrian  records  tell  us  nothing. 
On  the  contrary,  they  in  a  certain  sense  exclude  him, 
since  in  the  lists  of  the  Assyrian  monarchs  who  reigned  about  this 
period  .  .  .  there  is  no  mention  of  Pul,  and  no  indication  of  any  place 
at  which  his  reign  can  be  inserted.  ...  In  this  silence  of  the  Assyrian 
annals  with  respect  to  Pul,  we  turn  to  the  ancient  historian  of  Meso 
potamia,  Berosus,4  and  we  find  that  we  have  not  turned  to  him  in 
vain.  Berosus  mentioned  Pul,  and  placed  him  exactly  at  this  pe 
riod  ;  but  he  called  him  a  '  Chaldean,'  and  not  an  *  Assyrian,'  mon 
arch."'  Rawlinson  explains  this  by  the  fact  that  the  king  of  the 
great  empire  of  western  Asia  at  any  time  after  the  rise  of  the  Assyr 
ian  empire  could  be  regarded  as  the  "  king  of  Assyria,"  as  Nabopo- 
lassar  in  2  Kings  xxiii,  29,  and  Darius  Hystaspis  in  Ezra  vi,  22. 

In  2  Kings  xv,  29  it  is  stated  that  "in  the  days  of  Pekah  king  of 
Israel  came  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria,  and  took  Ijon,  and 
Abel-bethmaachah,  and  Janoah,  and  Kedesh,  and  Hazor,  and  Gil- 
ead,  and  Galilee,  all  the  land  of  Naphtali,  and  carried  them  captive 
to  Assyria."  Again,  "And  king  Ahaz  went  to  Damascus  to  meet 
Tiglath-pileser,  king  of  Assyria"  (2  Kings  xvi,  10).  Here  the  history 
of  the  monarchs  of  Israel  and  Judah  touches  the  Assyrian  history,  and 
finds  abundant  confirmation  from  the  Assyrian  monuments.  "  Tig- 

*Hist.  Illus.  Old  Test.,  Rawlinson  and  Hackett,  pp.  121,  122. 
Mbid.,  pp.  122,  123.  'De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  320. 

*  He  was  born  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
6  Hist.  Illus    Old  Test.,  pp.  131,  132. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  293 

lath-pileser  relates,  that  about  his  fifth  year  (B.  C  741),  being  en 
gaged  in  wars  in  Southern  Syria,  he  met  and  defeated  a  vast  army 
under  the  command  of  Azariah,  king  of  Judah,  the  great  monarch 
whose  host  is  reckoned  in  Chronicles  at  307,500  men,  and  whose 
military  measures  are  described  at  considerable  length  (2  Chron. 
xxvi,  6-15).  Again,  he  relates  that  from  his  twelfth  to  his  fourteenth 
year  (B,  C.  734-732)  he  carried  on  a  war  in  the  same  regions  with 
the  two  kings,  Pekah  of  Samaria  and  Rezin  of  Damascus,  who  were 
confederate  together,  and  that  he  besieged  Rezin  in  his  capital  for 
two  years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  he  captured  him  and  put  him  to 
death,  while  he  punished  Pekah  by  mulcting  him  of  a  large  portion  of 
his  dominions,  and  carrying  off  vast  numbers  of  his  subjects  into  cap 
tivity.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  how  completely  this  ac 
count  harmonizes  with  the  scriptural  narrative,  according  to  which 
Pekah  and  Rezin,  having  formed  an  alliance  against  Ahaz,  and  hav 
ing  attacked  him,  Ahaz  called  in  the  aid  of  Tiglath-pileser,  king  of 
Assyria,  who  '  hearkened  to  him,  and  .  .  .  went  up  against  Damascus, 
and  took  it,  and  carried  the  people  captive  to  Kir,  and  slew  Rezin ' 
(2  Kings  xvi,  9);  and  who  likewise  punished  Pekah  by  invading  his 
territory  and  carrying  away  the  Reubenites,  the  Gadites,  and  half 
the  tribe  of  Manasseh  (2  Kings  xv,  29  ;  i  Chron.  v,  6,  26),  and  settling 
them  in  Gozan  in  the  Khabour.  Further,  Tiglath-pileser  relates, 
that  before  quitting  Syria  he  held  his  court  at  Damascus,  and  there 
received  submission  and  tribute  from  the  neighbouring  sovereigns, 
among  whom  he  expressly  mentions  not  only  Pekah,  of  Samaria, 'but 
"  Yahu-Khazi  (i.  e.,  Ahaz),  king  of  Judah."  '  This  illustrates  the  ac 
count  of  Ahaz's  visit  to  Damascus  "  to  meet  Tiglath-pileser  "  (2  Kings 
xvi,  10).  "  The  annals  of  Tiglath-pileser  contain  also  some  mention 
of  the  two  Israelite  monarchs,  Menahem  and  Hoshea." 

"  The  capture  of  Samaria,  and  the  deportation  of  its  people  by  the 
Assyrians,  which  terminated  the  reign  of  Hoshea,  and  Capture  of  sa- 
at  the  same  time  brought  the  kingdom  of  Israel  to  an  Se^m^fS 
end,  is  noticed  in  the  annals  of  Sargon,  who  was  Shal-  sargon. 
maneser's  successor,  and  assigned  by  him  to  his  first  year,  which  was 
B.  C.  722,  721.  Here,  it  will  be  observed,  there  is  an  exact  accord  be 
tween  the  Assyrian  and  Hebrew  dates,  the  Hebrew  chronology  plac 
ing  the  fall  of  Samaria  in  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-fifth  year  before 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  was  in  the  eight 
eenth  year  of  that  king,  or  B.  C.  586  (and  B.  C.  586+135  producing 
B.  C.  721).  Again,  Sargon  relates  that  he  carried  away  captive  from 
Samaria  27,280  persons;  and  he  subsequently  states  that  he  trans 
ported  numerous  prisoners  from  Babylonia  to  a  place  '  in  the  land  of 
'Hist.  Illus.  Old  Test.,  pp.  134,  135. 


294  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

the  Hittites,'  which  is  probably  Samaria,  though  the  inscription  is 
not  at  this  point  quite  legible  (compare  2  Kings  xvii,  24)." ' 

In  2  Kings  xviii,  7,  13-16  it  is  stated  that  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah. 
rebelled  against  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  served  him  not,  and  that  in 
the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah,  Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria,  came 
up  "against  all  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah  and  took  them."  Heze 
kiah  appeased  Sennacherib  by  agreeing  to  pay  him  whatever  he 
might  demand.  Sennacherib  appointed  him  to  pay  "  three  hundred 
talents  of  silver  and  thirty  talents  of  gold.  And  Hezekiah  gave  him 
all  the  silver  that  was  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the 
treasures  of  the  king's  house.  At  that  time  did  Hezekiah  cut  off 
the  gold  from  the  doors  of  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the 
pillars  which  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  had  overlaid,  and  gave  it  to 
the  king  of  Assyria."  "  The  annals  of  Sennacherib,  son  and  suc- 
Hezekiahmen-  cessor  of  Sargon,"  says  Rawlinson,  "contain  a  full  ac- 
annafs  o^sen-  count  of  tnis  campaign.  'Because  Hezekiah,  king  of 
nacherib.  Judah,'  says  Sennacherib,  '  would  not  submit  to  my 
yoke,  I  came  up  against  him,  and  by  force  of  arms  and  by  the  might 
of  my  power  /  took  forty-six  of  his  strong  fenced  cities,  and  of  the 
smaller  towns  which  were  scattered  about  I  took  and  plundered  a 
countless  number.  And  from  these  places  I  captured  and  carried 
off  as  spoil  200^50  people,  old  and  young,  male  and  female,  to 
gether  with  horses  and  mares,  asses  and  camels,  oxen  and  sheep,  a 
countless  multitude.  And  Hezekiah  himself  I  shut  up  in  Jerusa 
lem  like  a  bird  in  a  cage,  building  towers  round  the  city  to  hem 
him  in,  and  raising  banks  of  earth  against  the  gates  to  prevent 
escape.  .  .  .  Then  upon  this  Hezekiah  there  fell  the  fear  of  the 
power  of  my  arms,  and  he  sent  out  to  me  the  chiefs  and  the  elders 
of  Jerusalem,  with  thirty  talents  of  gold  and  eight  hundred  talents 
of  silver,  and  divers  treasures,  a  rich  and  immense  booty.  .  .  .  All 
these  things  were  brought  to  me  at  Nineveh,  the  seat  of  my  govern 
ment,  Hezekiah  having  sent  them  by  way  of  tribute,  and  as  a  token 
of  submission  to  my  power.'  The  close  agreement  of  these  two  ac 
counts  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  and  is,  indeed,  so  palpable  that  it 
is  needless  to  enlarge  upon  it  here.  The  Assyrian  monarch,  with 
pardonable  pride,  brings  out  fully  all  the  details.  .  .  .  His  main  facts 
are  exactly  those  which  the  Jewish  historian  puts  on  record,  the  only 
apparent  discrepancy  being  in  the  number  of  the  talents  of  silver, 
where  he  probably  counts  the  whole  of  the  treasure  carried  off, 
while  the  Hebrew  writer  intends  to  give  the  amount  of  the  perma 
nent  tribute  which  was  agreed  upon."1 

After  Hezekiah  had  paid  tribute  to  Sennacherib,  the  Assyrian 
1  Hist.  Illus.  Old  Test.,  p.  138.  'Ibid.,  pp.  142,  143. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  295 

king  sent  a  great  force  against  Jerusalem,  and  a  message  to  Hez- 
ekiah.  "And  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  went  out,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  a  hundred 
fourscore  and  five  thousand  :  and  when  they  arose  early  in  the 
morning,  behold,  they  were  all  dead  corpses  "  (2  Kings  xix,  35).  It 
was  also  prophesied:  "Behold,  I  will  send  a  blast  upon  him,"  etc. 
(chap,  xix,  7). 

Respecting  this  disaster,  "  the  annals  of  Assyria  are  silent.     Such 

silence  is  in  no  way  surprising.     It  has  always  been  the 

_,  i        i          ,      •        Silence  of  A*- 

practice  in  the  East  to  commemorate  only  the  glories  syrian   annals 

of  the  monarch,  and  to  ignore  his  reverses  and  defeats.  ^truTtioS *S 
The  Jewish  records  furnish  a  solitary  exception  to  this  Sennacherib's 
practice.  In  the  entire  range  of  the  Assyrian  annals  a 
there  is  no  case  where  a  monarch  admits  a  disaster,  or  even  a  check, 
to  have  happened  to  himself  or  his  generals ;  and  the  only  way  in 
which  we  become  distinctly  aware  from  the  annals  themselves  that 
Assyrian  history  was  not  an  unbroken  series  of  victories  and  con 
quests,  is  from  an  occasional  reference  to  a  defeat  or  loss  as  sustained 
by  a  former  monarch." '  But  in  the  account  of  Egypt  by  Herodotus 
there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  the  miraculous  defeat  of  Sennach 
erib.  In  speaking  of  Sethon,  a  priest  of  Hephaestus,  who  made 
himself  king  of  Egypt,  he  remarks  that  he  had  offended  the  soldiers  ; 
and  when  Sennacherib,  king  of  the  Arabians  and  the  Assyrians, 
inarched  a  great  army  against  Egypt,  Sethon  in  his  distress,  as  the 
soldiers  would  not  aid  him,  resorted  to  the  temple,  where  the  god 
appeared  to  him  in  a  dream,  and  assured  him  he  would  suffer  no 
injury  by  going  out  to  meet  Sennacherib's  army.  He  accordingly 
set  out  for  Pelusium  with  a  force  consisting  only  of  traders,  artisans, 
and  hucksters.  When  he  had  reached  the  place  where  Sennacherib's 
army  had  encamped,  the  field-mice,  during  the  night,  had  poured 
forth  like  a  stream  over  the  army  of  the  Assyrians,  and  had  eaten  up 
their  quivers,  their  bows,  and  the  straps  of  their  shields,  so  that  on 
the  next  day,  being  deprived  of  their  arms,  they  fled,  and  many 
of  them  perished.  And  now  this  king,  in  stone,  stands  in  the  temple 
of  Hephaestus,  having  a  mouse  in  his  hand,  with  the  following  inscrip 
tion  :  "  WHOEVER  BEHOLDS  ME,  LET  HIM  REVERENCE  THE  GODS  " 
(book  ii,  141).  In  Egyptian  mythology,  the  mouse  seems  to  have 
been  the  symbol  of  the  silent  destructive  workings  of  divine  Providence. 
In  2  Kings  xx,  12  mention  is  made  of  Merodach-Baladan,  king 
of  Babylon.  His  name  "appears  in  the  Assyrian  in-  Merodach-Bai- 
scriptions,  and  also  in  the  famous  document  known  as  Jjjjj^ 
the  Canon  of  Ptolemy.' "  In  i  Kings  xiv,  25,  26  it  is  tions. 
*Hist.  Illus.  Old  Test.,  p.  144. 


296  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE    STUDY 

stated,  that  "  it  came  to  pass,  in  the  fifth  year  of  King  Rehoboam 
that  Shishak  king  of  Egypt  came  up  against  Jerusalem :  and  he 
took  away  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  treasures 
of  the  king's  house  •  he  even  took  away  all :  and  he  took  away  all 
the  shields  of  gold  which  Solomon  had  made."  Of  this  expedition 
there  is  a  notice  "contained  in  an  inscription  erected  by  Shishak 
(Sheshonk)  at  Karnak,  which  has  been  most  carefully  studied  by 
modern  scholars,  and  may  be  regarded  as  having  completely  yielded 
up  its  contents.  This  document  is  a  list  of  countries,  cities,  and 
tribes  conquered  in  his  great  expedition  by  Shishak,  and  regarded 
by  him  as  tributaries.  It  contains  not  only  a  distinct  mention  of 
*  Judah,'  as  a  *  kingdom  '  which  Shishak  had  subjugated,  but  also  a 
long  list  of  Palestinian  towns."  ] 

Josephus  states,  that  according  to  the  Phoenician  records,  "  the 
temple  in  Jerusalem  was  built  by  King  Solomon  one  hundred  and 
forty-three  years  and  eight  months  before  the  Tyrians  founded 
Carthage." ''  He  also  quotes  the  testimony  of  Dius,  who  wrote 
of  Phoenician  affairs,  that  "when  Solomon  was  king  of  Jerusalem 
he  sent  riddles  to  King  Hiram." 

Respecting  the  Babylonian  captivity  Josephus  quotes  the  testi 
mony  of  the  Chaldean  historian,  Berosus,  born  in  the  time  of  Alexan 
der  the  Great,  that  Nabopolassar  sent  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar  with 
a  great  force  when  he  had  learned  that  the  Jews  had  revolted,  and 
mastered  them,  and  burnt  the  temple  which  was  in  Jerusalem,  and 
carried  away  all  the  people  captive  to  Babylon;  and  that  the  city 
(of  Jerusalem)  was  desolate  for  seventy  years,  until  the  time  of  Cyrus 
the  king  of  the  Persians.3 

Lynx-eyed,  skeptical  criticism  can  find  but  few  contradictions  in 
the  Books  of  Kings.  In  i  Kings  ix,  22  it  is  stated,  that  "of  the 
children  of  Israel  did  Solomon  make  no  bondmen."  But  this  docs 
not  contradict  what  is  said  in  i  Kings  v,  13,  14:  "And  King  Solo 
mon  raised  a  levy  out  of  all  Israel ;  and  the  levy  was  thirty  thousand* 
men.  And  he  sent  them  to  Lebanon,  ten  thousand  a  month,  by 
courses;  "  for  this  was  but  a  brief  service,  somewhat  like  drafting 
men  into  the  army,  or  compelling  them  to  work  a  certain  number 
of  days  on  the  public  highways,  as  is  often  done,  even  in  republican 
governments.  Nor  is  there  any  force  in  the  indirect  contradictions 
sometimes  alleged,  nor  have  we  space  to  pursue  them. 

'Hist.  Illus.  Old.  Test,  p.  118.        'Against  Apion,  lib.  i,  17.        "Ibid.,  19. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  297 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

THE    BOOKS    OF    CHRONICLES. 

"PHE  two  Books  of  Chronicles,  called  in  Hebrew  D'D'n  n:n,  dibhri 
hayyamim,  daily  affairs,  journal  of  affairs,  originally  made  one 


book.1  In  the  Septuagint  they  are  called  napakeiTroneva,  things  omitted, 
or  supplemental.  They  are  placed  at  the  end  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
but  as  the  events  related  in  them  generally  belong  to  the  same  age  as 
the  Books  of  Kings,  they  appropriately  follow  those  books,  as  in  the 
English  version.3 

The  first  nine  chapters  contain  the  genealogies  of  the  ancient 
world  as  found  in  Genesis,  beginning  with  Adam,  and  also  those 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  times  subsequent  to  the  history  in  the  Penta 
teuch,  ending  in  the  royal  line  with  the  sons  of  Elioenai  (chapter 
iii,  24),  "who  lived  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon.  In 
terspersed  with  these  genealogies  are  historical  incidents,  and  an 
account  of  the  temple  service  in  Jerusalem. 

The  second  division  of  the  books  begins  with  the  death  of  Saul 
and  the  accession  of  David  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  and  ends 
with  the  death  of  Solomon  (i  Chron.  x-xxix;  2  Chron.  i-ix).  The 
third  division  begins  with  the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  the  successor 
of  Solomon,  and  embraces  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  only, 
and  reaches  to  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus  for  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  in  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  x-xxxvi). 

THE  DATE  OF  THEIR  COMPOSITION  AND  THEIR  AUTHORSHIP. 

As  the  history  in  these  books  ends  with  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus 
for  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xxxvi,  22,  23),  pj^^y.  ^^ 
about  B.  C.  536,  the  books  could  not  have  been  composed  ten  in  the  time 
before  that  monarch's  reign.  The  use  of  the  Persian  ° 

word  p'imx,  adharkon,  a  daric,  in  i  Chron.  xxix,  7,  shows  that  the 
•  --» 

work  could  not  have  been  composed  before  about  B.  C.  500,  as  darics 
are  said  to  have  been  first  introduced  by  Darius  about  that  time. 

1  Origen  (in  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  25)  speaks  of  Chronicles  as  making  one  book 
in  Hebrew.  Jerome  calls  them  the  seventh  book  in  the  Hagiographa.  Preface  to 
Samuel  and  Kings. 

*  Also  in  the  Septuagint,  Peshito-Syriac,  and  Vulgate. 


298  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

Nor  is  it  likely,  if  the  books  had  been  written  in  the  Greek  period 
after  Alexander  the  Great,  that  the  word  darics  would  have  occurred 
in  it  at  all,  especially  as,  according  to  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Antiqui 
ties,  "after  the  Persian  conquest  they  were  melted  down  and  recoined 
under  the  type  of  Alexander." 

It  has  been  thought  by  some  that  the  genealogies  in  i  Chron.  iii, 
19-24,  reach  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  or  even  later; ' 
but  this  view  is  destitute  of  any  good  foundation,  for  the  list  goes  no 
further  than  the  sons  of  Hananiah,  the  son  of  Zerubbabel ;  and  there 
is  no  proof  that  the  subsequent  names  in  the  list  were  descendants 
of  the  previous  ones,  but  they  are,  rather,  parallel  genealogies.  But 
we  are  not  compelled  to  rest  on  negative  proof  only,  for  we  have 
some  of  the  persons  whose  names  occur  in  the  last  part  of  the  list 
also  in  Ezra,  who  speaks  of  them  as  having  gone  up  with  him  in  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes.  He  mentions  Hattush,  one  of  the  descendants 
of  David  ;  the  sons  of  Shechaniah,  and  Elihoenai."  Accordingly, 
the  genealogies  in  Chronicles  do  not  come  down  later  than  the  time 
of  Ezra,  for  Zerubbabel  went  up  to  Jerusalem  in  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Cyrus,  B.  C.  536,  and  the  grandchildren  of  Zerubbabel,  men 
tioned  in  i  Chron.  iii,  19-21,  would  be  the  contemporaries  of  Ezra, 
who  went  up  to  Jerusalem  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes,  about 
B.C.  457  (Ezra  vii,  6,  7). 

There  is  nothing  in  these  Books  of  Chronicles  belonging  to  an  age 
later  than  that  of  Ezra,  and  this  is  a  probable  proof  that  they  were 
composed  in  his  time. 

Respecting  the  author  of  the  books,  Furst  remarks  that  tradition 
Ezra  probably  says  that  Ezra  composed  the  first  nine  chapters ;  and 
the  author.  jf  he  ^id  this,  it  was  for  an  introduction  to  his  Ezra- 
Nehemiah ;  that,  respecting  the  written  sources  of  the  second  part 
(i  Chron.  x-xxix,  2  Chron.  i-xxxvi),  tradition  is  silent.*  But  if  Ezra 
wrote  the  first  nine  chapters,  it  is  very  probable  that  he  wrote  the 
other  part  of  Chronicles. 

Some  very  able  biblical  critics  regard  Ezra  as  the  author  of  the 
Chronicles;  as  Eichhorn,  Havernick,  Keil,  Fiirst,4  etc.  And  this 
seems  to  us  the  best  view.  It  is  true,  if  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah  were  all  written  by  one  author,  we  should  be  compelled  to 
deny  that  Ezra  was  that  author.  But  Nehemiah  is  plainly  to  be 
separated  from  Ezra,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel.  There  is  good 

*Dr.  Zunz  thinks  that  the  Chronicles  were  composed  about  260  B.  C.  Gottesdienst 
Vortrrige,  p.  33. 

"  Ezra  viii.  1-4.  In  I  Chron.  iii,  24  the  last  man  whose  sons  are  named  is  Eli 
oenai,  without  the  h.  "  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  I2O,  122. 

4  In  his  Geschich.  Bib.  Lit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  537,  538. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  299 

reason  for  believing  that  Ezra  wrote  the  book  that  bears  his  name  ; 
and  the  Chronicles  and  that  book  are  closely  connected,  and  share 
the  same  spirit,  and  use  the  same  style  of  language. 

The  last  two  verses  of  Chronicles  are  the  same  as  the  beginning  of 
Ezra,  referring  to  the  decree  of  Cyrus  respecting  the  building  of  the 
temple  in  Jerusalem.  "  The  great  affinity  in  language,"  says  Keil, 
"  the  frequent  references  made  to  the  law  in  similar  formulas  ;  the 
predilection  for  extended  descriptions  of  the  proceedings  at  acts  of 
worship,  along  with  the  temple  music  and  the  songs  of  praise  by  the 
Levites,  in  standing  liturgical  formulas;  also  the  predilection  for  gene 
alogies  and  public  registers  —  all  which  are  common  to  the  two  works 
—  elevate  this  probability  of  common  authorship  into  a  certainty."1 

As  examples  of  words  common  to  both  Chronicles  and  Ezra,  may  be 
mentioned  "ri33,  a  cup,  which  occurs  three  times  in  Chronicles,  and  the 
same  number  of  times  in  Ezra  ;  nowhere  else  in  this  Examples  of 
sense.  naSa,  a  division  of  the  Levites,  is  found  twice  in  to°r  chrcmicies 
Chronicles  and  once  in  Ezra;  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible.  and  Ezra< 


The  peculiar  phrase,  combining  three  prepositions,  pfjnolJ^  unto 
afar  off,  is  found  only  in  2  Chron.  xxvi,  15,  and  in  Ezra  iii,  13.  The 
Hithpael  form  of  3U,  :njnrt,  to  give  willingly,  to  offer  spontaneously 
gifts  to  Jehovah,  occurs  in  this  sense  only  in  i  Chron.  xxix,  5,  6,  9, 
14,  17,  and  in  Ezra  i,  6,  ii,  68,  and  iii,  5.  Elsewhere  the  Hithpael 
conjugation  is  used  only  in  Judges  v,  2,  9,  2  Chron.  xvii,  16,  in  the 
sense  to  volunteer  for  military  service,  and  in  Nehemiah  xi,  2,  in  the 
sense  to  offer  themselves  to  dwell.  The  Hophal  infinitive,  TD^n,  in 
the  sense  foundation  (from  1D'),  occurs  only  in  2  Chron.  iii,  3,  and  in 

Ezra  iii,  n.     cn'Ti1?  1331?  ton   to  set  one's  heart  to  seek,  is  found  in 
,  .      T  ,    i  .  ~ 

2  Chron.  xii,  14,  xix,  3,  xxx,  19,  and  in  Ezra  vii,  10.  The  phrase 
!3pJ  nia^3,  expressed  by  name,  based  on  Num.  i,  17,  is  elsewhere  found 
only  in  i  Chron.  xii,  31,  xvi,  41,  2  Chron.  xxviii,  15,  xxxi,  19,  and 
in  Ezra  viii,  20.  There  are  other  usages  of  language  common  to 
Chronicles  and  to  Ezra,  but  the  examples  given  are  the  most  strik 
ing,  and  of  themselves  furnish  a  highly  probable  proof  of  the  identity 
of  authorship  of  these  books. 

There  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing  that  Chronicles  and  Ezra 
originally  formed  one  book  ;  for,  in  that  case,  we  would  not  have  the 
same  statement  in  the  conclusion  of  Chronicles  and  in  the  beginning 
of  Ezra.  The  language  of  Chronicles,  though  coloured  with  Chaldee 
bears  no  marks  of  being  later  than  that  of  Ezra  or  Nehemiah.  In 
fact,  the  Chaldaisms,  JOT,  time,  and  coS»,  to  rule,  found  in  Ecclesiastes, 

Introduction,  Clark's  Pub.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  77,  78. 


300  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Nehemiahj  and  Esther,  are  wanting  in  Chronicles.  The  full  method 
of  writing  David,  Tn,  occurs  in  Ezra  (chaps,  iii,  10,  viii,  20)  as  well 
as  in  Chronicles,  and  furnishes  no  proof  of  the  lateness  of  the  book. 
This  full  form  is  found  even  in  the  prophets  Amos  (chaps,  vi,  5, 
ix,  n)  and  Hosea  (chap,  iii,  5). 

THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 

As  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  those  of  Kings  were  already  writ 
ten,  the  question  arises,  For  what  purpose  did  the  author  of  Chron 
icles,  whom  we  suppose  to  be  Ezra,  write  ?  to  which  the  answer 
must  be  given  from  the  examination  of  the  books  themselves. 
First  of  all,  he  intended  to  give  the  genealogies  of  the  Israelites, 
which  were  but  partially  found  in  the  other  books  of  the  Hebrew 
people ;  and  then  to  give  a  connected  history  from  the  death  of 
Saul  to  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple 
in  Jerusalem,  limiting  himself,  after  the  separation  of  the  ten  tribes, 
to  the  house  of  Judah,  omitting  much  that  was  found  in  Samuel 
and  Kings,  and  interweaving  new  matter,  especially  in  reference  to 
the  armies  of  David,  and  the  service  of  the  priests  and  Levites  in 
the  temple. 

THE   SOURCES    OF   THE    HISTORY. 

The  author  of  Chronicles  refers  to  various  works  treating  of  the 
principal  portions  of  the  history  over  which  his  books  extend,  and 
which  he  doubtless  used  in  the  composition  of  his  own  work. 

The  sources  first  named  occur  in  i  Chron.  xxix,  29  :  "  Now  the 
acts  of  David  the  king,  the  first  and  last,  behold,  they  are  written  in 
the  Book  of  Samuel  the  seer,  and  in  the  Book  of  Nathan  the  prophet, 
and  in  the  Book  of  Gad  the  seer."  The  word  here  rendered  "  book  " 
is  properly  "  affairs  "  (D'"m),  and  it  is  very  probable  that  our  pres 
ent  Books  of  Samuel  are  included  in  the  reference,  as  they  appear 
to  be  original  sources.  Mention  is  also  made  of  the  Prophecy  of 
Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  the  Visions  of  Iddo  the  seer,  in  addition 
to  the  Book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  as  sources  for  the  history  of 
Solomon  (2  Chron.  ix,  29).  Other  sources  for  the  history  of  other 
kings  are,  the  Book  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet,  the  Book  of  Iddo  the 
seer  concerning  genealogies  (2  Chron.  xii,  15),  the  Commentary  of 
the  Prophet  Iddo  (2  Chron.  xiii,  22),  the  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah 
and  Israel  (2  Chron.  xvi,  n  ;  xxv,  26  ;  xxviii,  26  ;  xxxii,  32) ;  the  same 
work  or  works  referred  to,  as  the  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah  (2  Chron.  xxvii,  7;  xxxv,  27;  xxxvi,  8);  the  Book  of  the 
Kings  of  Israel  (2  Chron.  xx,  34;  xxxiii,  18) ;  the  Commentary  of 
the  Book  of  the  Kings  (2  Chron.  xxiv,  27).  Reference  is  also  made 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  301 

to  Isaiah  the  prophet  (2  Chron.  xxvi,  22) ;  and  to  the  vision  of  Isaiah 
the  prophet  (chap,  xxxii,  32). 

There  can  he  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Books  of  the  Kings  of 
Judah  and  Israel  are  the  annals  of  those  kingdoms  which  are  referred 
to  in  these  books  as  the  sources  of  the  history.  The  Commentary 
mentioned  was,  no  doubt,  the  same  as  the  annals  of  the  kingdoms. 

The  question  here  arises,  How  far  did  the  author  of  Chronicles 
make  use  of  our  Books  of  Kings  ?  This  question  is  not  The  Books  of 
easily  answered ;  for  where  the  language  is  the  same  in  Samuel  and 

.          .  Kings  used  by 

Chronicles  as  that  in  Kings,  the  former  may  not  be  a  quo-  the  compiler  of 

tation,  but  in  both  works  the  phraseology  may  have  been  the  Cnronlcles- 
derived  from  a  common  source.  It  is  evident  that  with  the  original 
sources  of  the  history  of  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel  lying  be 
fore  the  author  of  the  Chronicles,  there  would  be  but  little  need  of 
using  our  Books  of  Kings,  which,  for  the  most  part,  are  mere  epit 
omes  of  the  history.  But  in  the  arrangement  of  the  materials,  he 
may,  to  a  certain  extent,  have  taken  them  as  models. 

Keil's  opinion  is,  that  "in  the  historical  narratives  which  are  com 
mon  to  the  Chronicles  and  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Opinlong  of 
Kings  these  canonical  books  cannot  have  been  em-  Ken,  Bieek, 
ployed.  For  in  the  parallel  passages  the  Chronicles 
furnish  a  multitude  of  historical  statements  for  which  we  seek  in 
vain  in  those  books;  and  they  also  differ  often  and  in  many  ways 
from  the  parallel  accounts  as  regards  the  arrangement  and  succes 
sive  order  of  the  individual  points  of  importance,  and  also  follow 
thoroughly  a  course  of  their  own,  both  as  to  what  they  communicate 
and  as  to  what  they  pass  over.'" 

"We  cannot  doubt,"  says  Bleek,"  "that  the  author  derived  the 
materials  of  his  work,  at  least  by  far  the  greatest  part,  from  written 
sources — from  older  historical  works.  In  regard  to  the  relation  of  the 
Chronicles  to  our  other  Old  Testament  books,  especially  Samuel  and 
Kings,  considering  the  age  of  the  author  of  Chronicles,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  he  was  acquainted  with  these  books  as  writings  pos 
sessing  public  authority,  as  elements  of  a  canonical  collection  of 
holy  Scriptures;  and  we  can  presuppose  as  certain  that  he  made 
use  of  them  for  his  work.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
he  has  once  expressly  cited  the  Books  of  Samuel,  as  ninn  Sxntf  npi, 
the  affairs  of  Samuel  the  seer  (i  Chron.  xxix,  29).  The  comparison 
of  the  books  themselves  does  not  allow  us  to  doubt  that  the  author 
really  made  usi:  of  those  books,  and  that  they  were  for  him  in  many 
things  the  chief  source  in  his  history  of  the  kings." 

'Introd.,  vol.  ii,  p.  63.     In  Clark's  For.  TheoL  Libr.          "Einl.,  pp.  396,  397. 


302  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

De  Wette  thus  expresses  his  opinion:  "That  the  accounts  which 
run  parallel  with  those  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  were  taken 
from  them  the  following  considerations  favour  :  The  natural  connex 
ion  in  which  the  earlier  accounts  stand  with  such  as  the  Chronicles 
have  omitted ;  .  .  .  the  originality  of  those  accounts  in  comparison 
with  these  in  the  Chronicles ;  the  certainty  that  the  writer  of  Chron 
icles  must  have  known  the  earlier  books."  To  which  Schrader 
adds,  as  the  special  reason,  "  that  the  author  of  Chronicles  has 
incorporated  into  his  work  such  sections  as  were  written  by  the 
author  of  the  Books  of  Kings."1  The  first  section  which  Schrader 
gives  in  Chronicles  as  having  been  written  by  the  author  of  the 
Books  of  Kings  is  Solomon's  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  tem 
ple  (i  Kings  viii,  12-53;  2  Chron.  vi).  But  are  we  to  suppose  that 
Solomon's  prayer  was  made  up  by  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings? 
Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  was  written  down  by 
some  one  at  the  time  it  was  delivered  ?  It  is  clear  that  the  author 
of  Kings,  in  his  history  of  Solomon,  followed  an  original  document, 
for  he  says :  "  And  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon,  and  all  that  he 
did,  and  his  wisdom,  are  they  not  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts 
of  Solomon  ?  "  (i  Kings  xi,  41.)  It  is  true,  the  writing  to  which  ref 
erence  is  here  made  may  have  perished  before  the  composition  of  the 
Books  of  Chronicles,  so  that  the  author  of  this  work  took  the  prayer 
of  Solomon  from  the  Book  of  Kings.  The  other  instances  of  quota 
tion  cited  by  Schrader  have  in  them,  sometimes,  passages  not  found 
in  the  Books  of  Kings,  so  that  it  is  evident  that  the  author  had  other 
written  sources  to  which  he  refers.  The  most  reasonable  of  all  the 
ories  is,  that  the  author  of  Chronicles  used  the  Books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings,  in  addition  to  various  other  written  sources. 

CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY  IN  THE  BOOKS  OF  CHRONICLES. 
The  principal  portion  of  the  history  in  Chronicles  is  the  same  as 
that  contained  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  and,  accordingly,  has  all  the 
claims  to  be  considered  genuine  history  which  belong  to  the  nar 
ratives  in  the  earlier  books.  And  where  the  author  of  Chronicles 
gives  additional  matter  he  refers  us  to  the  original  sources  whence 
he  evidently  drew  his  information. 

"  The  Chronicles,"  says   Bleek,  "  in  our  century,  have  been  the 
Depreciation  of  subject  of  various  investigations   and   lively   disputes, 
c^nicies8  b*  most^y  *n  respect  to  their  relation  to  the  other  books  of 
modern skepti-  the  Old  Testament  (Samuel  and  Kings),  and  their  his 
torical  credibility."8     Especially  did  De  Wette  attack 
these  books  in  1806,  and  subsequently  endeavoured  to  show,  against 
1  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  379.  a  Einleitung,  p.  393. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  303 

Eichhorn,  that  their  author  had  no  other  early  written  sources  ex 
cept  Samuel  and  Kings,  which  he  did  not  use  faithfully  or  skil 
fully;  that  he  partly  misunderstood  them,  and  partly  altered  them 
in  an  arbitrary  manner,  and  made  additions  in  the  interest  of  the 
priests  and  Levites.  Against  him,  in  1819,  wrote  Dahler,  to  whom 
Gramberg,  a  few  years  later,  wrote  a  reply,  denying  all  credibility  to 
the  Books  of  Chronicles.  On  the  other  hand,  the  books  have  been 
defended  vigourously  by  Movers,  Keil,  Havernick,  and  others.  De 
Wette,  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  editions  of  his  Introduction,  softened  and 
modified  his  earlier  views. 

Schrader  remarks  that  the  author  of  Chronicles  "did  not  use  ex 
clusively  our  canonical  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  in  Schroder  ex- 
the  composition  of  his  history.  This  is  evident  from  the  amined- 
character  of  a  great  part  of  the  accounts,  peculiar  to  himself,  which 
are  given  by  the  author.  The  different  sources  quoted  in  these 
Books  of  Chronicles  lead  to  the  same  result."  1  He  also  remarks : 
"  From  a  comparison  of  the  parallel  sections  in  Chronicles  and  in 
the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  two  things  follow  :  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  author  of  Chronicles  executed  his  work  in  accordance  with 
his  sources,  and  in  many  instances  adhered  closely  to  the  letter 
of  those  sources;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  judged  at  the 
same  time  that  an  elaboration,  to  a  certain  extent  more  free,  and  upon 
the  basis  of  the  views  of  his  own  age,  would  not  be  unsuitable. 
The  same  may  be  presumed  for  those  sections  and  remarks  which 
assume  a  more  independent  position  towards  the  parallel  sections  in 
the  other  historical  books.  And  a  more  close  investigation  thor 
oughly  confirms  this  supposition.  Among  sections  of  the  latter  kind 
we  meet  with  such  as  excite  just  suspicion  respecting  their  entire 
credibility,  and  their  having  been  derived  from  authentic  sources  : 
partly,  on  account  of  their  Levitical  tendency ;  partly,  on  account  of 
the  improbability  of  their  contents;  and,  finally,  on  account  of  their 
contradiction  to  the  older,  and,  on  this  ground,  generally  more  cred 
ible,  accounts  of  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  we 
likewise  find,  on  the  other  hand,  such  as  carry  in  their  very  face  the 
stamp  of  their  being  thoroughly  historical,  and  are  to  be  referred 
either  to  a  good  memory  or  to  old  sources.  The  Chronicles  are  not, 
therefore,  to  be  at  once  rejected  as  an  historical  source.  How  far 
their  statements  are  to  be  taken  as  credible  must,  in  every  instance, 
be  separately  investigated."8  Such,  then,  is  the  present  skeptical 
view  respecting  these  books.  Negative  criticism  has  a  dogmatic  in 
terest  in  reducing  the  historical  credibility  of  the  Chronicles  to  the 
lowest  point.  De  Wette  confesses  this  when  he  says  :  "As  the  entire 
1  In  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  p.  380.  '  Ibid.,  pp.  375,  376. 


304  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Jewish  history,  on  its  most  interesting  and  important  side,  namely, 
that  of  religion  and  the  manner  of  observing  the  worship  of  God,  after 
the  accounts  in  the  Chronicles  have  been  put  out  of  the  way, .  .  .  assumes 
quite  a  different  shape ;  so,  also,  the  investigations  about  the  Pen 
tateuch  take  quite  a  different  turn  all  at  once;  a  multitude  of  trouble 
some  proofs,  difficult  to  put  out  of  the  way,  that  the  Mosaic  books  were 
in  existence  at  an  earlier  time,  vanish,"  etc.1 

On  the  historical  character  of  the  Chronicles  Dr.  Davidson  re- 
Daviason's  ad-  marks:  "  The  general  credibility  of  the  writer's  commu- 
mission  of  the  nications  may  be  safely  asserted.  In  many  cases  they 
Syof  chron-  can  be  confirmed  by  independent  testimony.  Thus  the 
Icles-  victory  of  Asa  over  the  Ethiopians,  under  Zerah  [omit 

ted  in  Kings],  is  described  in  a  manner  accordant  with  the  historical 
relations  of  ancient  Egypt.  The  Ethiopians  marched  from  Egypt, 
and  thither  they  went  back.  Accordingly,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
this  Ethiopian  king  possessed  Egypt,  and,  therefore,  that  his  territory 
extended  nearly  to  the  borders  of  Palestine.  Herodotus  relates  that 
several  of  the  Egyptian  kings  were  Ethiopians.  The  successive  and 
minute  details  in  the  narrative  are  such  as  bear  the  stamp  of  his 
torical  truth,  not  of  fiction.  .  .  . 

"  The  invasion  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Philistines  and  Arabians  in 
the  reign  of  Jehoram  (2  Chron.  xxi,  16-19)  [not  mentioned  in  Kings] 
is  confirmed  by  Joel  (chap,  iii,  4-6).  .  .  . 

"  The  wars  of  Uzziah  and  Ahaz  against  the  Philistines,  as  de 
scribed  in  2  Chron.  xxvi,  6,  and  xxviii,  18,  agree  with  Isaiah  xiv,  28, 
etc.,  and  Amos  vi,  2."  .  .  .  Dr.  Davidson,  however,  adds:  "Yet  it 
must  not  be  concealed  that  there  are  serious  suspicions  against  his 
accuracy  in  all  places."  ' 

Bleek  thinks  that  the  statements  of  the  Chronicles  are  sometimes 
inexact,  and  remarks  :  "  Where  a  comparison  of  the  more  ancient 
canonical  books,  especially  Samuel  and  Kings,  is  at  our  command, 
we  are  bound  to  lay  these  at  the  foundation  in  forming  our  judg 
ment,  and  not  to  depart  from  them.  But  we  are  not  at  all  justified 
in  regarding  all  things  which  the  Chronicles  contain,  beyond  what  is 
in  these  books,  as  unhistorical,  or  purely  arbitrary  changes  or  en 
largements,  but  we  must  consider  them  as  having  been  derived  by 
the  author  of  Chronicles  from  other  old  sources ;  for  the  most  part 
from  the  same  which  were  used  for  the  Books  of  Samuel,  and  espe 
cially  for  those  of  Kings."  ! 

We  have  no  good  reason  for  questioning  the  fidelity  of  the  author 
of  the  Chronicles  in  any  instance.  He  had  before  him  the  original 

!In  Keil's  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  pp.  61,  82. 

'  Ibid.,  pp.  105,  106.  *  Einleitung,  p.  400. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  305 

documents  for  the  history  he  narrates,  nor  can  we  see  that  he  has 
not  fairly  used  them.  We  see  no  indications  that  he  has  magnified 
the  office  of  the  priests.  It  was  natural  that  the  author,  who  was  in 
all  probability  a  priest  (Ezra),  should  interweave  in  his  history 
some  account  of  his  professional  brethren.  How  could  one,  writing 
in  the  interests  of  the  priests,  use  the  following  language :  "  For  the 
Levites  were  more  upright  in  heart  to  sanctify  themselves  than  the 
priests  "  (2  Chron.  xxix,  34)  ? 

The  author  of  Chronicles  has  been  charged  with  hatred  towards 
the  kingdom  of  Israel.  But  this  nowhere  appears.  rfbQ  author  ot 
When  Pekah,  king  of  the  ten  tribes,  slew  a  hundred  Chronicles  not 
and  twenty  thousand  men  of  Judah,  and  carried  away  apar 
two  hundred  thousand  captives,  women,  sons,  and  daughters,  then 
certain  of  the  heads  of  the  children  of  Ephraim  refused  to  receive 
the  captives,  but  took  them,  "  and  with  the  spoil  clothed  all  that 
were  naked  among  them,  and  arrayed  them,  and  shod  them,  and 
gave  them  to  eat  and  to  drink,  and  anointed  them,  and  carried  all 
the  feeble  of  them  upon  asses,  and  brought  them  to  Jericho  ...  to 
their  brethren  "  (2  Chron.  xxviii,  6-15).  Could  such  a  statement 
respecting  the  treatment  which  the  captive  Jews  received  from  the 
ten  tribes,  especially  from  the  Ephraimites,  have  sprung  from  hate  ? 

The  numbers  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles  sometimes  bear  the  marks 
of  exaggeration,  and  occasionally,  also,  are  at  variance  Exaggerated 
with  those  in  Samuel  and  Kings.  In  other  instances,  numbers  in 
however,  the  numbers  in  Chronicles  are  the  smaller.  c 
The  book  has,  doubtless,  suffered  greatly  from  the  errors  of  tran 
scribers,  as  there  is  always  a  great  liability  to  mistake  in  copying 
numbers ;  and,  when  the  error  is  once  committed,  it  is  continued  in 
each  copy,  as  there  is  no  check  upon  numbers.  An  error  in  the 
spelling  of  a  word  is  corrected  from  a  previous  knowledge  of  its  or 
thography.  A  mistake  in  writing  a  word  is  often  corrected  from 
the  context.  If  we  were  sure  that  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts 
numerals  were  designated  by  letters — the  opinion  of  some  1 — the  er 
rors  in  numbers  could  in  some  cases  be  easily  explained.  For  beth 
(2),  two,  might  be  readily  mistaken  for  kaph  (:>),  twenty;  and  dalet\ 
(i),four,  for  resh  ("i),  two  hundred. 

There  are  about  thirty-five  or  forty  statements  in  the  Chronic'es 

1  Among  others  Dr.  Davidson  holds  this  view.  But  in  Gesenius'  Hebrew  Gram 
mar,  by  Roediger,  it  is  remarked  :  "  This  numeral  use  did  not,  according  to  the  ex 
isting  MSS.,  take  place  in  the  O.  T.  text,  and  is  found  first  on  coins  of  the  Macca« 
bees  (middle  of  2d  cent.  B.  C.)."  Prof.  Conant's  Trans.,  p.  17.  But  it  must  be  ob 
served  that  th°  oldest  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  are  not  more  than  a  thousand  years  old, 
and  furnish  no  proof  respecting  the  custom  a  thousand  years  before. 

VOL.  I.— 20 


306  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE    STUDY 

respecting  either  the  age  of  the  kings  of  Judah  when  they  began  to 
reign,  or  the  years  of  their  respective  reigns,  and  in  every  case,  ex 
cept  that  of  Ahaziah  and  Jehoiachin,  the  numbers  correspond  with 
those  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  If  the  numbers  in  the  primitive  docu 
ments  used  by  the  author  of  Chronicles  were  exaggerated,  he  is  not 
responsible  for  it.  But  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  most  exces 
sive  of  these  numbers  were  in  the  original  text  of  Chronicles.  For 
how  is  it  possible  that  the  author  of  Chronicles  could  have  supposed 
that  Asa's  army  was  five  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  (of  Judah  and 
Benjamin)  (2  Chron.  xiv,  8),  and  that  of  Jehoshaphat,  thirty  or  forty 
years  later,  one  million  one  hundred  and  sixty  thousand,  and  that 
forty  or  fifty  years  afterwards,  when  Amaziah  numbered  the  forces, 
the  whole  number  of  warriors  in  Judah  and  Benjamin  was  three  hun 
dred  thousand,  and  then  shortly  afterwards  three  hundred  and  seven 
thousand  five  hundred,  when  there  was  no  cause  to  make  the  increase 
or  diminution  ?  We  cannot  attribute  such  stupidity  as  this  to  th« 
author.  A  corruption  of  the  original  text  in  the  excessive  numbers 
is  the  most  reasonable  explanation. 


CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

THE    BOOK    OF    EZRA. 

'PHIS  book  is  written  partly  in  Hebrew  and  partly  in  Chaldee. 
•••  The  Chaldee  portions  are  chaps,  iv,  8-vi,  18  ;  vii,  12-26 ;  this  last 
part  being  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  in  favour  of  Ezra.  The  book  is 
so  named  on  account  of  Ezra's  being  the  principal  character  in  it, 
and  perhaps  also  from  his  being  its  reputed  author.  It  is  separated 
from  the  Book  of  Nehemiah  not  only  in  the  modern  editions  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  but  also  in  the  Septuagint,  the  Peshito-Syriac,  and 
the  Vulgate.1  In  the  time  of  Origen3  and  Jerome,8  Ezra  and  Ne 
hemiah  formed  one  book.  Although  both  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  treat 
01  tne  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  there  is  no 
good  reason  for  uniting  them  together  as  if  they  were  the  product 
of  the  same  author,  for  Nehemiah  is  naturally  separated  from  Ezra 
by  the  very  language  with  which  it  begins :  "  The  words  of  Nehe 
miah,  the  son  of  Hachaliah."  The  second  chapter  of  Ezra  contains 

1  In  the  Vulgate  Nehemiah  is  also  called  the  Second  Book  of  Ezra. 

*  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  book  vi,  chap.  25. 

•  in  preface  to  Samuel  and  Kings,  Jerome,  however,  states  *hat  Ezra  was  divided 
into  two  books  [E/.ra  and  Nehemiah]  among  the  Greeks  and  Latins. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  307 

a  long  list  (seventy  verses)  of  those  who  went  up  with  Zeiubbabel 
from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem,  and  a  statement  of  their  beasts  of  burden 
and  the  contributions  made  for  the  building  of  the  temple.  This 
list  is  given  with  but  little  variation  in  Nehemiah  vii,  6-70.  If  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  were  the  work  of  a  single  author,  or  of  a  later  editor, 
who  compiled  the  whole  from  existing  documents  (Ezra-Nehemiah), 
what  could  have  induced  him  to  give  this  long  list  twice^  and  that, 
too,  with  variations  ? 

The  Book  of  Ezra  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  parts.  The 
first  contains  an  account  of  those  who  went  up  to  Jerusalem  from 
Babylon  with  Zerubbabel,  in  the  beginning  of  Cyrus's  reign,  and  the 
rebuilding  and  ,the  dedication  of  the  house  of  God  (chaps,  i-vi). 
The  second  division  gives  an  account  of  the  going  up  to  Jerusalem 
of  Ezra  and  his  companions  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes,  and 
their  acts  after  their  arrival  (chaps,  vii-x). 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  AND  ITS  AUTHOR. 

Skeptical  critics,  who,  as  far  as  possible,  resolve  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  into  separate  and  independent  documents,  apply 
the  dissecting  knife  to  Ezra.  Thus  Schrader  attributes  to  Ezra  that 
portion  of  the  book  beginning  with  chap,  vii,  27,  and  ending  with 
chap,  ix,  15,  in  which  Ezra  speaks  in  the  first  person ;  to  Ezra  he 
also  attributes  the  Chaldee  document  (chap,  vii,  12-26).  But  chaps, 
vii,  i-n  ;  x,  in  which  the  third  person  is  used,  he  thinks,  did  not,  in 
their  present  form,  proceed  from  Ezra  himself,  but  were  composed  upon 
the  basis  of  Ezra's  notes  by  a  later  writer  who,  he  supposes,  wrote 
the  Book  of  Chronicles,  and  to  whom  he  attributes  also  chaps,  i,  iii, 
iv,  1-7,  24;  vi,  14,  16-18,  19-22.*  Respecting  chaps,  vii-x  Bleek* 
remarks  :  "  The  second  part  is  in  general,  without  doubt,  composed 
by  Ezra  himself,  who,  for  the  most  part,  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first 
person  (chaps,  vii,  27~ix).  But  even  where  he  uses  the  third  person, 
as  in  the  entire  tenth  chapter,  and  in  the  beginning  of  The  objection 
this  division  (chap,  vii,  i-n),  it  can  in  no  way  be  in-  Critics  ^tS 
ferred  with  any  degree  of  certainty  that  Ezra  himself  did  unity  of  Ezra 
not  write  this  part;  but  rather,  as  chapter  tenth  stands  consldered- 
in  close  connexion  with  what  precedes,  there  is  the  greatest  proba 
bility  that  it  was  written  by  the  same  author.  Likewise,  it  cannot  be 
well  supposed  that  Ezra  began  his  narrative  with  chap,  vii,  27,  and 
it  is  also  very  probable  that  he  would  not  have  commenced  it  im 
mediately  with  the  letter  of  Artaxerxes  (chap,  vii,  12-26)  ;  rather,  he 
would  have  prefixed  to  it  an  introduction,  as  we  read  in  chap,  vii, 
1-1  o).  Only  it  may  be  well  supposed  that  it  was  retouched  by  a  late? 
^inleitung,  pp.  386,  388.  »Ibid.,  pp.  384,  385. 


308  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

hand."  Accordingly,  he  does  not  think  the  statement  respecting 
Ezra,  "  he  was  a  scribe  skilled 'in  the  law  of  Moses,"  really  proceeded 
from  him,  nor  Ezra's  genealogy  (chap,  vii,  1-5).  But  why  Ezra 
could  not  say  that  he  was  skilled  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  write  hi-s 
qwn  genealogy,  is  not  easy  to  see. 

We  entirely  agree  with  Bleek  in  the  foregoing  remarks,  excepting 
what  he  says  about  the  retouching  of  this  part  of  Ezra.  It  is,  indeed, 
utterly  improbable  that  the  book  should  have  originally  ended  with 
chapter  ninth,  containing  the  prayer  of  Ezra  for  those  who  had  taken 
strange  wives,  and  should  have  given  no  account  of  the  effect  of  that 
prayer — how  that  the  Israelites  assembled  and  solemnly  pledged 
themselves  to  put  their  strange  wives  away. 

Since  chaps,  vii-x  must  be  conceded  to  have  been  written  by  Ezra, 
it  remains  to  consider  the  first  part  (chaps,  i-vi).  As  Ezra  did  not 
go  up  to  Jerusalem  till  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes  (about  B.  C. 
458),  he  had  no  share  in  the  transactions  recorded  in  the  first  part 
of  the  book,  ending  with  the  dedication  of  the  temple  in  the  sixth 
year  of  Darius  (B.  C.  515),  and  the  celebration  of  the  passover 
soon  after  (chap,  vi,  15-22).  Now,  first  of  all,  it  must  be  observed 
that  the  beginning  of  the  second  part  of  Ezra,  opening  with  these 
words,  "  Now,  after  these  things,  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,"  natu 
rally  refers  to  a  preceding  part.  As  he  wrote  an  account  of  the  sec 
ond  company  of  exiles  who  returned  to  Jerusalem,  it  was  quite 
natural  that  he  should  write  a  sketch  of  the  preceding  company 
that  returned  thither.  When  Nehemiah  went  up  to  Jerusalem  he 
found  a  list  of  those  who  first  went  up  to  the  city,  and  incorporated 
it  into  his  book  (Neh.  vii,  5-73) ;  this  same  list  is  found  in  Ezra  ii. 
Doubtless  there  was  also  a  list  of  the  vessels  and  other  articles  to  be 
used  in  the  temple.  There  also  existed  the  decree  of  Cyrus  in  favour 
of  the  Jews,  the  letter  of  their  enemies  to  Artaxerxes,  and  his  com 
mand  to  cease  building  the  temple,  and  the  decree  of  Darius  for  its 
rebuilding.  These  documents  furnished  Ezra  with  material  for  the 
first  part  of  his  history.  There  may  have  been  other  written  me 
morials  ;  besides,  Ezra  could  have  learned  some  things  from  old  men 
who,  in  their  youth,  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  transactions  de 
scribed.  That  the  existing  documents  and  memorials  would  be 
combined  into  an  historical  form  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  rather  than  a 
hundred  years  later — if,  indeed,  they  had  any  separate  existence  that 
late — is  very  probable.  The  history  in  the  first  part  of  Ezra  is  con 
secutive,  and  well  connected  with  the  second  part. 

But  if  Ezra  did  not  write  the  first  part  of  the  book — more  than  one 
half  of  it — why  should  a  later  writer  have  composed  it  and  prefixed 
it  to  Ezra's  writing,  and  not  rather  have  called  it  Zerubbabel,  or  by 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  309 

some  other  name?  It  could  not  be  on  account  of  its  containing 
but  six  chapters,  since  some  of  the  minor  prophets  contain  but  two 
or  three  chapters,  and  one  of  them  has  but  a  single  chapter.  Bleek 
himself  acknowledges  "that  the  narrative  has  an  altogether  good 
connexion  and  natural  course,  from  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus  to  the 
exiles  to  return  to  their  home,  to  the  impediments  which  the  adver 
saries  of  the  Jews  threw  in  the  way  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  " — 
that  is,  from  Cyrus  to  Darius  Hystaspis.  It  is  in  the  fourth  chapter 
that  Bleek  finds  difficulties  which  he  cannot  solve  on  the  hypothesis 
that  it  was  written  by  Ezra,  or  any  one  in  that  age.  In  chap,  iv,  5-8, 
it  is  stated  that  the  people  of  the  land  "  hired  counsellors  against 
them  (the  Jews),  to  frustrate  their  purpose,  all  the  days  of  Cyrus, 
king  of  Peir.ia,  even  until  the  reign  of  Darius,  king  of  Persia.  And 
in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus,  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  wrote  they 
unto  him  a«i  accusation  against  the  inhabitants  of  Judah  and  Jerusa 
lem.  And  in  the  days  of  Artaxerxes,  wrote  Bishlam,  Mithredath, 
Tabeel,  and  the  rest  of  their  companions,  unto  Artaxerxes,  king  of 
Persia.  Rehum,  the  chancellor,  and  Shimshai,  the  scribe,  wrote  a 
letter  against  Jerusalem  to  Artaxerxes,  the  king."  After  this  the 
letter  to  Artaxerxes  is  given,  in  which  they  speak  against  the  build 
ing  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  reply  Artaxerxes  forbids  the 
building,  whereupon  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  caused  them  to  cease 
from  their  work.  It  is  added :  "  Then  ceased  the  work  of  the 
house  of  God  which  is  at  Jerusalem.  So  it  ceased  unto  the  second 
year  of  Darius,  king  of  Persia  "  (chap,  iv,  24). 

As  there  is  no  mention  made  of  building  the  temple  in  the  letter 
to  Artaxerxes  and  in  his  reply,  but  only  of  the  building  and  fortify 
ing  of  Jerusalem,  Bleek  thinks  that  the  writer  has  made  a  mistake, 
and  referred  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  in 
the  times  of  Xerxes  (B.  C.  485-465),  and  in  those  of  Artaxerxes  Lon- 
gimanus  (B.  C.  465-425),  to  the  building  of  the  temple  which  had 
already  been  finished  a  considerable  length  of  time.1  In  reply  to 
this,  it  must  be  remarked,  that  in  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  (Ezra  iv, 
19-22)  there  is  no  mention  of  the  building  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem; 
the  language  of  the  decree  is  as  follows :  "  Give  ye  now  command 
ment  to  these  men  [the  Jews]  to  cease,  and  that  this  city  be  not 
builded,  until  another  commandment  shall  be  given  from  me."  It  is 
the  city  that  he  decrees  shall  not  be  rebuilt.  How  could  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus  have  decreed  that  Jerusalem  should  not  be  rebuilt, 
when  the  temple  had  been  rebuilt  and  dedicated  fifty  years  before 
he  began  to  r*ign  ?  If  the  Jews  had  been  allowed  to  rebuild  their 
temple,  of  course  it  was  implied  that  they  could  build  dwelling- 
1  Einleitung,  pp.  386,  387. 


310  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

houses  also,  as  a  necessary  accompaniment.  It  is  not  to  be  sup 
posed  that  they  lived  in  Jerusalem  a  half  century  or  more  with 
out  dwellings ;  for,  according  to  2  Kings  xxv,  8,  9,  when  Nebuchad 
nezzar  captured  Jerusalem,  Nebuzar-adan,  his  captain,  "burnt  all 
the  houses  of  Jerusalem."  The  language  of  decrees  is  required  to 
be  definite.  If  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  and  its  houses  had  been 
rebuilt,  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  would  have  named  walls  specific  • 
ally.  The  decree  of  Artaxerxes  was  in  answer  to  the  letter  of  the 
enemies  of  the  Jews,  who  declared  that  the  Jews  are  "  building  the 
rebellious  and  the  bad  city,  and  have  set  up  the  walls  thereof,  and 
joined  the  foundations."  "We  certify  the  king  that,  if  this  city  be 
builded  again,  and  the  walls  thereof  set  up,"  etc.  This  language 
implies  that  the  Jews  had  but  recently  commenced  the  work,  and  it 
is  not  appropriate  to  the  times  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.  The 
decree  forbidding  the  building  of  the  city,  of  course,  forbade  also 
the  construction  of  the  temple. 

Keil '  supposes  that  Ezra  iv,  6-23  refers  to  the  hostile  attempts 
Keii's  supposi-  of  the  adversaries  of  the  Jews  under  Xerxes  and  in  the 
Uon-  first  years  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  and  that  it  respects 

"  the  building  up  of  the  city  and  its  walls,"  agreeing  in  this  respect 
with  Bleek.  But  the  context,  in  addition  to  what  we  have  already 
said,  refutes  this  view;  for  immediately  after  the  decree  of  Arta 
xerxes  it  is  added,  that  the  adversaries  of  the  Jews  "  made  them  to 
cease  by  force  and  power.  Then  ceased  the  work  of  the  house  of 
God,  which  is  at  Jerusalem.  So  it  ceased  unto  the  second  year  of 
the  reign  of  Darius,  king  of  Persia  "  (chap,  iv,  23,  24).  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes,  in  virtue  of  which  the  work  on 
the  temple  ceased,  was  issued  more  than  fifty  years  after  the  begin 
ning  of  the  reign  of  Darius ! 

When  Nehemiah  obtained  from  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  his  reign,  permission  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and 
to  take  a  letter  from  him  to  the  keeper  of  the  king's  forest,  that  he 
might  obtain  timber  for  the  wall  of  the  city  and  for  other  purposes, 
no  objection  was  made,  nor  allusion  to  any  decree  by  this  king 
forbidding  the  building  of  the  wall,  and  that  in  a  narrative  giving 
many  particulars  (Neh.  ii).  Between  Cyrus  and  Darius  but  two 
monarchs  are  known  to  history — Cambyses  and  Smerdis — who  must 
be  the  Persian  kings  during  whose  reign  the  building  of  the  temple 
was  frustrated  (Ezra  iv,  5-7).  The  first  of  these  is  called  Ahasuerus: 
on  which  name  Gesenius  remarks,  in  reference  to  the  present  pas- 
sage :  *'  The  order  of  time  would  require  it  to  be  understood  of 
Cambyses  "  (Heb.  Lex.).  In  Daniel  ix,  i,  Darius  the  Mede  is  called 
1  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p.  102. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  311 

the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  where,  according  to  Gesenius,  Ahasxierus 
stands  for  Astyages.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  name  cannot  be 
restricted  to  the  famous  Xerxes.  According  to  Gesenius  the  name 
is  the  same  as  the  modern  Persian,  lion  king.  Artaxerxes  (chap,  iv, 
7,  etc.)  is  defined  by  Gesenius  to  be  in  this  chapter  Pseiido-Smen^sr 
who  not  improbably  took  the  name  of  Artaxerxes  on  his  accession. 
According  to  Gesenius,  Artaxerxes  means  mighty  king,  and  this  title 
could  be  easily  applied  to  the  kings  of  Persia,  whom  the  Greeks 
called  the  great  kings. 

There  is  no  difficulty,  then,  in  attributing  the  whole  book  to 
Ezia,  and  there  is  nothing  in  it  belonging  to  a  later  age.  The  change  of 
It  is  no  objection  to  its  unity  that  Ezra  begins  the 
sketch  of  himself  in  the  third  person  (chap,  vii,  i— n),  its  unity, 
and  then  in  the  first  (chap,  vii,  27~ix),  and  then  changes  to  the  third 
(chap.  x).  An  examination  of  the  nature  of  the  matter  in  each  case 
either  justifies  or  requires  this  change.  This  change  of  person  oc 
curs  in  other  biblical  writers.  In  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the  unity  of 
which  is  acknowledged  by  the  most  skeptical,  in  the  first  part  (chaps 
i-vii,  14)  Daniel  speaks  in  the  third  person  of  himself,  in  the  rest 
of  the  book  (chaps,  vii,  i5~xii)  in  the  first  person.  We  find  Isaiah 
speaking  of  himself  in  the  first  person  in  chap,  vi  of  his  prophecy, 
but  in  the  very  next  chapter  he  says :  "  Then  said  the  Lord  unto 
Isaiah."  Amos,  in  the  beginning  of  the  yth  chapter  of  his  prophecy 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person,  but  he  changes  it  to  the  third 
in  the  i2th  and  i4th  verses :  "Amaziah  said  unto  Amos." . . .  "Then 
answered  Amos."  Any  difference  of  style  in  the  book  is  easily  ex 
plained  from  its  being  partly  made  up  of  decrees,  where,  of  course, 
the  phraseology  is  naturally  different  from  Ezra's. 

That  the  "  kings  of  Persia  "  have  this  designation  in  Ezra  is  to 
Schrader1  a  proof  that  the  book  in  its  present  form  is  not  older 
than  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  as  it  presupposes  that  the 
Persian  empire  had  already  fallen.  According  to  this  Ezra  would 
never  himself  have  written,  "  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,"  or  "  Darius  king 
of  Persia,"  but  simply  "  Cyrus  the  king,"  "  Darius  the  king."  But 
the  Book  of  Ezra  uses  both  of  these  formulae.  Isaiah,  in  the  begin- 
ning  of  his  prophecy,  speaks  of  having  seen  his  vision  "  in  the  days 
of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah."  Micah 
tells  us  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  "  in  the  days  of 
Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah."  Had  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  already  perished  when  they  wrote  ?  Would  it  be  improper 
for  a  Canadian  or  an  Irishman  to  write :  Victoria,  Queen  of  England  ? 
or  even  for  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  write:  R.  B.  Hayes, 
1  In  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  pp.  391,  392. 


812  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

President  of  the  United  States  ?  The  Jews  had  been  accustomed  to 
have  kings  of  their  own,  and  it  was  natural  for  them,  while  in  subjec 
tion  to  foreign  rulers,  to  name  the  country  over  which  they  ruled. 

According  to  the  Talmudists,1  Ezra  wrote  the  book  that  bears  his 
name,  and  this  is  the  judgment  of  such  critics  as  Havernick  and 
Keil,  and  we  have  already  seen  that  it  has  everything  in  its  favour. 


CHAPTER   XXXVIII. 

THE    BOOK     OF    NEHEMIAH. 

book,  so  called  from  Nehemiah 's  being  its  chief  character  as 
**•  well  as  its  author,  stands  separate  from  the  Book  of  Ezra  in 
the  modern  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  in  the  Septuagint,  in  the 
Peshito-Syriac,  and   in   the  Vulgate.2     Unlike  Ezra,  it  is  written 
wholly  in  Hebrew. 

In  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  Nehemiah,  his 
cupbearer,  is  deeply  afflicted  by  the  intelligence  he  has  received  of 
the  distressed  condition  of  his  countrymen  in  Judah,  and  obtains  per 
mission  from  the  king  to  visit  Jerusalem  and  to  rebuild  it.  After 
this  the  book  gives  an  account  of  the  building  of  the  wall  of  Jeru 
salem  under  his  administration;  a  list  of  those  who  went  up  to  the 
holy  city  with  Zerubbabel ;  an  account  of  the  solemn  and  important 
religious  services  held  there,  and  of  the  covenant  made  by  the  peo 
ple  ;  a  list  of  the  chief  men  dwelling  in  Jerusalem,  and  of  others 
dwelling  in  Judah  and  Benjamin.  This  is  followed  by  a  list  of  the 
priests  and  Levites  who  went  up  with  Zerubbabel,  and  of  the  arrange 
ments  made  at  the  dedication  of  the  wall.  The  book  closes  with  a 
statement  respecting  the  correction  of  abuses  by  Nehemiah. 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  AND  ITS  AUTHOR. 

The  different  parts  of  this  book  are  well  connected,  and  in  the 
The  parts  of  most  °^  **  ^e  connexi°n  is  verv  close,  so  that  there  is 
the  book  closely  no  room  for  the  supposition  that  it  is  the  work  of  more 
than  one  author.  In  the  first  half  (chaps,  i-vii,  5)  Ne 
hemiah  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person,  to  which  must  be  added, 
as  undoubtedly  his,  the  list  of  those  who  went  up  to  Jerusalem  and 
Judah  at  first,  which  carries  us  to  the  end  of  chapter  vii.  Jn  chap- 

J  Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  116. 

•In  the  Latin  Vulgate  it  is  called  both  the  Book  of  Nehemiah  and  Second Bcok 
of  Jtzra, 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  313 

ter  viii  Nehemiah  retires,  as  it  were,  into  the  background,  and  Ezra 
the  priest  comes  into  view;  his  brethren,  the  Levites,  take  a  promi 
nent  part  in  the  religious  services,  and  the  following  chapter  (ix)  is 
occupied  with  the  prayer  of  certain  Levites.  In  these  two  chapters 
the  name  of  Nehemiah  occurs  but  once,  and  then  in  the  third  person. 
There  was  no  place  for  him  in  the  performances.  In  the  beginning 
of  chapter  x  his  name  appears  in  the  third  person,  first  in  the  list 
of  those  who  were  sealed.  But  in  this  very  chapter,  standing  in  close 
connexion  with  what  precedes,  the  first  person  plural  is  used  in 
such  a  way  as  to  identify  the  writer  with  them.  Take  as  an  exam 
ple  :  "  And  we  cast  the  lots  among  the  priests,"  etc. ;  "  And  that  we 
should  bring  the  first  fruits,"  etc.  In  chapter  xi  is  an  enumeration 
of  those  who  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  and  in  other  cities,  in  which  there  is 
no  place  for  the  mention  of  Nehemiah,  and  accordingly  his  name  is 
not  found. 

In  the  first  part  of  chap,  xii  is  a  list  of  priests  who  went  up  to  Je 
rusalem  with  Zerubbabel.  In  the  other  portion  the  writer  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  first  person,  and  so  he  does  in  the  concluding  chap 
ter.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  Nehemiah  wrote  at  least  The  authorship 
three  fourths  of  the  book,  and  the  middle  of  it  is  the  p^^T^ 
only  part  (with  the  exception  of  a  few  verses)  that  is  doubtful, 
denied  to  be  his.  As  the  very  beginning  of  the  book  asserts  its  au 
thor  to  be  Nehemiah  ("  The  words  of  Nehemiah  the  son  of  Hacha- 
liah"),  which  is  confirmed  by  his  writing  for  the  most  part  in  the  first 
person,  none  but  the  weightiest  reasons  should  induce  us  to  think 
that  about  one  fourth  of  the  whole  is  an  interpolation,  and  that  in 
the  middle. 

De  Wette  attributes  to  Nehemiah  the  first  eight  chapters.  Schra- 
der,  then,  taking  up  the  subject,  asserts  that  chaps,  viii-x,  40,  are  an 
interpolation,  made  by  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  upon 
the  basis  of  contemporary  notes;  chap,  xi,  3-36,  Schrader  thinks 
may  have  been  written  by  Nehemiah — at  least,  that  it  belongs  to  his 
time;  chap,  xii,  1-26,  he  thinks  cannot  be  Nehemiah's,  but  that  it 
is  quoted  from  annals  referred  to  in  verse  23;  chap,  xii,  27-42,  he 
concedes  to  Nehemiah  ;  chaps,  xii,  43-xiii,  3,  he  supposes  to  have 
been  written  by  the  author  of  Chronicles.  The  remainder  of  the 
book  (chap,  xiii,  4-31)  he  attributes  to  Nehemiah.1  This  is,  in 
deed,  a  fine  specimen  of  critical  dissection !  Bleek  regards  Nehe 
miah  as  the  author  of  the  first  seven  chapters,  and  of  the  last  three 
with  the  exception  of  chap,  xii,  1-26,  which,  in  its  present  form 
could  not  have  been  written  by  Nehemiah  ;  he  denies  also  chap, 
xii,  47,  to  be  Nehemiah's.  He  supposes  that  originally  the  last  three 
1  In  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  pp.  389,  390. 


314  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

chapters  were  joined  to  the  first  seven — the  work  of  NehemiaL — and 
that  the  three  middle  chapters  were  interpolated  by  a  later  hand.1 
Dr.  Davidson's  views  are  about  the  same  2  as  those  of  Schrader. 
Respecting  the  three  chapters  (viii,  ix,  x),  which  some  deny  to  be 
Nehemiah's,  it  must  first  of  all  be  observed  that  such 
an  interpolation  in  the  middle  of  a  book  is  unnatural. 

of    Nehemiah   A  verse  or  two  might  be  written  on  the  margin,  and  af- 
considered.  .  .     . 

terwards   incorporated    into    the   text,   but   not    whole 

chapters.  Large  additions  may  be  made  to  an  original  work  as 
a  continuation.  And,  indeed,  it  is  not  likely  that  any  one  would 
take  the  liberty  of  interpolating  so  largely  the  work  of  their  re 
spected  governor.  But  why  should  we  suppose  that  the  incidents 
recorded  in  the  three  middle  chapters  formed  no  part  of  the  genuine 
narrative  of  Nehemiah?  They  stand  in  close  connexion  with  what 
precedes.  In  chapter  vii,  73,  it  is  stated  :  "  When  the  seventh  month 
came,  the  children  of  Israel  were  in  their  cities."  In  the  very  first  part 
of  the  next  chapter  (viii)  Ezra  reads  the  law  of  Moses  to  the  assem 
bled  crowd  in  Jerusalem  on  "  the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month."  In 
the  same  chapter  (viii,  14-18)  it  is  stated  that  the  Israelites  dwelt  "  in 
booths  in  the  feast  of  the  seventh  month,"  beginning  on  the  fifteenth 
(Lev.  xxiii,  39).  And  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter  (ix)  it 
is  stated  that  the  Israelites  held  a  fast  on  the  twenty-fourth  "  day  of 
this  month  "  (the  seventh),  and  the  prayer  offered  on  the  occasion  is 
given.  The  end  of  this  prayer  is  closely  connected  with  the  follow 
ing  chapter  (x).  And  in  this  chapter  (x)  the  writer  uses  the  first 
person  plural  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he  was  a  participator  in 
the  events.  Now  Nehemiah  appears  to  have  had  a  part  in  the 
transactions  narrated  (viii,  9  ;  x,  i).  The  reading  of  the  law  of 
Moses  before  the  assembled  crowd  of  Israelites  after  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem  had  been  rebuilt,  and  the  grand  celebration  of  the  feast 
of  tabernacles,  the  solemn  fast,  and  the  covenant  which  the  people 
made  to  serve  God  (and  Nehemiah  appears  among  the  covenanters), 
would  not  have  been  omitted  by  him  in  the  circumstantial  narrative 
of  the  events  in  the  earliest  part  of  his  administration. 

The  minute  particulars  given  in  these  three  middle  chapters 
rhe  three  chap-  (viii-x)  show  that  they  were  written  down  by  an  eye- 
wruteii  by^an  witness.  Even  Schrader  admits  that  they  were  corn- 
eye-witness,  posed  on  the  basis  of  notes  made  at  the  time.  Tne 
long  prayer  (chap,  ix,  5-38)  offered  by  eight  Levites  on  the  sol 
emn  fast  day  was  in  all  probability  prepared  for  the  yeat  occa 
sion — most  likely  written  down  and  committed  to  memory.  For,  if 
it  had  been  extemporaneous,  how  could  eight  Levites  (verse  5)  have 
'Einleitung,  pp.  382-384.  'Introduction,  vol.  ii,  pp.  137-150. 


OF   THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  315 

prayed  it  at  once  ?  In  its  original  form  it  was  incorporated  by  Ne 
hemiah  into  his  book,  and  thus  has  all  the  freshness  and  peculiari 
ties  of  the  original  author,  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  look  into  it  for 
the  style  of  Nehemiah.  If  it  contained  Nehemiah's  peculiarities, 
that  would  be  fatal  to  its  claim  of  being  thoroughly  genuine. 

Further,  there  are  certain  linguistic  peculiarities  found  both  in  the 
middle  section  and  in  the  undisputed  part  of  the  book.  D'y^,  no 
bles,  occurs  as  "their  nobles,"  both  in  chap,  iii,  5,  and  in  chap,  x,  29; 
elsewhere  but  ten  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  though  the  singular 

form  is  used  fifteen  times.    The  word  occurs  nowhere  in  Ezra.    |3"»p, 

...    lx 
a  dedicatory  gift,  occurs  in  this  form  in  Nehemiah  x,  35  and  xiii,  31, 

in  the  phrase  "  an  offering  of  wood,"  and  nowhere  else  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  Now,  this  is  certainly  very  remarkable,  and  seems  of  itself 
sufficient  to  establish  the  unity  of  authorship  of  these  two  parts  of 
the  book,  and  hence  the  unity  of  the  whole  book.  |rain,  appointed^ 
occurs  in  Neh.  x,  35  and  xiii,  31,  and  nowhere  else,  except  Ezra  x,  14. 

Respecting  chapter  xii,  1-16  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  incor 
poration  of  such  a  list  into  the  book  by  Nehemiah  is  al-  The  list  in  chap- 
together  appropriate,  as  its  object  was  to  give  the  names  terxi1' 
of  the  Levites  who  participated  in  the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Je 
rusalem,  of  which  we  have  an  account  in  chapter  xii,  27-47.  Lists 
are  found  in  other  parts  of  his  work.  In  chapter  vii.  5  Nehemiah 
speaks  of  finding  "a  register  of  the  genealogy  of  them  which  came 
up  at  the  first,"  which  he  gives  (chap,  vii,  6-73).  In  chap,  xii,  1 1 
it  is  stated  that  "  Joiada  begat  Jonathan,  and  Jonathan  begat  Jad- 
dua."  It  has  been  alleged  that  this  Jaddua  is  the  same  as  the  high 
priest  Jaddus,  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Antiq.,  xi,  8,  4,  5)  as  a  con 
temporary  with  Alexander  the  Great  (B.  C.  332).  Jaddus  is  the  fifth 
in  descent  from  Joshua  (Neh.  xii,  10,  1 1),  who  went  up  to  Jerusalem 
with  Zerubbabel  (Ezra  ii,  2;  Neh.  xii,  i)  B.  C.  536.  The  Jaddus 
in  Nehemiah  might  have  lived  as  early  as  B.  C.  400.  In  Nehemiah 
xiii,  28,  mention  is  made  of  a  son  of  Joiada,  who  had  married  a 
daughter  of  Sanballat.  He,  accordingly,  was  a  brother  of  Jonathan, 
the  father  of  Jaddua,  who  might  have  been  mentioned  by  Nehemiah, 
and  might  have  been  erroneously  made,  by  Josephus,  a  contempcrary 
of  Alexander  the  Great.  But  it  is  best  to  regard  the  passage  thai 
speaks  of  Jaddua  as  an  interpolation — his  name  at  least.  Jaddua  is 
also  mentioned  in  chapter  xii,  22  ;  and  it  is  stated  that  the  priests 
were  recorded  "to  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Persian,"  that  is,  either 
Darius  Nothus  (B.  C.  425-404)  or  Codomannus  (B.  C.  336-330). 

It  is  not  improbable  that  this  passage  is  an  interpolation,  written 
at  first  or.  the  margin,  and  afterwards  incorporated  into  the  text 


316  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Those  who  can  think  that  whole  chapters  were  at  a  late  period 
inserted  in  the  book  should  have  no  difficulty  in  believing  that 
a  few  verses  were  added  to  the  original  text,  giving  some  facts  be 
longing  to  a  later  age.  In  chapter  xii,  26  mention  is  made  of 
"the  days  of  Nehemiah  .  .  .  and  Ezra,"  and  in  verse  47  of  the  days 
of  Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah.  But  these  words  could  have  been 
written  by  Nehemiah  after  he  had  retired  from  the  governorship 
if  not  before,  as  they  refer  to  \\\^  political  life.  When  we  find  nearly 
the  whole  of  a  work  bearing  internal  evidence  of  having  been  written 
in  a  certain  age  by  a  certain  author,  and  at  the  same  time  discover 
a  few  passages  belonging  to  a  later  age,  we,  without  hesitancy,  con 
sider  them  to  be  interpolations. 

The  Book  of  Nehemiah  bears  every  mark  of  having  been  written 
by  one  who  lived  in  the  very  midst  of  the  events,  which  are  described 
with  a  particularity  and  vividness  rarely  found. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  HISTORY  IN   BOOKS  OF  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH. 

The  historical  character  of  these  books  is  above  all  suspicion. 
The  historical  According  to  Ezra  vi,  15,  the  house  of  God  in  Jerusalem 
£herbooks  un-  was  finisned  in  tne  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius, 
doubted.  This  corresponds  well  with  what  we  find  in  Zechariah 

and  Haggai ;  for,  according  to  the  former,  the  foundations  of  the 
temple  were  already  laid  in  the  second  year  of  Darius'  reign,  but  the 
edifice  was  not  yet  finished  (chapter  iv,  9),  though  considerable 
progress  had  been  made  at  that  time  (Haggai  ii,  3).  Ezra,  and  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  his  contemporaries,  confirm  each 
other  in  other  matters  respecting  Jewish  affairs  in  their  age.  Nehe 
miah  is  praised  by  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  (not  later  than  about 
B.  C  200)  for  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  and  its  houses 
(chap,  xlix,  13). 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

THE     BOOK     OF     ESTHER. 

book  takes  its  name  from  the  Jewish  maid  called  originally 

nDin,  Hadhassah,  but  Esther1  after  she  became  the  wife  of  Alias- 
» --. 

uerus  (chap,  ii,  7),  as  she  is  the  principal  character  in  the  book. 

'Esther  is  the  same  as  the  Persian  sitareh  (star  of  good  fortune)  ;  Zend.,  stara  ; 
Greek,  aorrip;  Latin,  aster;  English,  star.  In  Syriac,  the  star  Venus.  "  This  name, 
therefore,  was  particularly  appropriate  to  the  character  and  circumstances  of  Es 
ther." — Gesenius,  Heb.  Lex. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  317 

The  book  relates  that  Ahasuerus,  who  reigned  from  India  to  Ethi 
opia,  made  a  great  feast  in  Shushan,  the  palace,  and  that  when  he 
was  merry  with  wine  he  ordered  the  queen  Vashti  to  be  brought 
in,  that  he  might  show  her  beauty  to  his  guests.  Vashti,  refus 
ing  to  comply  with  his  request,  is  deposed  from  being  queen,  and 
Esther  (a  Jewess,  the  cousin  and  adopted  daughter  of  Mordecai) 
is  choser  in  her  stead.  Hainan,  the  king's  prime  minister,  taking 
vrnbrage  at  the  want  of  respect  shown  him  by  Mordecai,-  obtains 
the  king's  decree  for  the  slaughter  of  all  the  Jews  in  the  king 
dom.  Esther  obtains  a  counter  decree.  Mordecai  is  advanced  to 
the  highest  place  of  honour,  and  Haman  is  hung.  The  Jews  slaughter 
their  enemies,  and  introduce  the  feast  of  Purim  in  commemoration 
of  their  deliverance.  The  book  closes  with  a  description  of  the 
greatness  of  Ahasuerus. 

CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  HISTORY. 

Serious  doubts  have  been  expressed,  at  different  times,  by  scholars 
of  the  credibility  of  the  history  contained  in  this  book.  Among 
these  may  be  named  Semler,  Oeder,  Corrodi,  Michael  is,  Bertholdt, 
De  Wette,  Gramberg,  Vatke,  Ewald,  Bleek,  and  Davidson.  It  has 
been  defended  by  Eichhorn  (not  fully,  however),  Jahn,  Rosenmiiller, 
Baumgarten,  Havernick,  Keil,  and  others.  The  modern  Jews  hold 
Jhe  book  in  high  esteem,  and  Maimonides  expresses  the  opinion 
ihat  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah  the  prophets  and  the  Hagiographa 
will  be  done  away,  with  the  exception  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  which 
is  as  endurable  as  the  Torah  and  the  oral  law.  The  Jerusalem 
Talmud  says  that  eighty-five  elders,  among  whom  more  than  thir 
ty  were  prophets,  ridiculed  the  introduction  of  the  Purim  festival, 
through  Esther  and  Mordecai,  as  an  innovation  against  the  law.1 
Julius  I'iirst8  shows  that  objections  were  made  at  an  early  period, 
according  to  the  Talmud,  to  inserting  the  Book  of  Esther  in  the 
Canon.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  book  did  not  stand  very 
high  with  the  ancient  Jews.  But  we  are  not  aware  that  they  ever 
called  in  question  the  credibility  of  its  history. 

The  book  is  not  found  in  the  catalogue  of  Melito,*  bishop  of  Sardis, 
in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century.  It  is  found  in  Not  found  in 
the  catalogue  of  Origen,4  and  in  that  of  Jerome,6  though  JJ}\h™Sd°5S! 
omitted  in  a  few  of  the  catalogues  of  the  earlier  centu-  lament  canon, 
ries.  In  modern  times,  Martin  Luther '  especially  expressed  his 

1  Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  405.  *  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  106,  107. 

'In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.,  book  iv,  26.  'Ibid.,  book  iv,  p.  25. 

'Preface  to  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.         eln  Bleek's  Einleitung,  p.  406. 


318  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

dislike  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  declaring  that  he  wished  that  nehhei 
she  nor  her  book  had  ever  existed.  Josephus,1  in  his  Antiquities,  gives 
a  very  full  account  of  Esther's  history,  drawn  mainly  from  our  present 
book,  and  he  remarks  that  "  all  the  Jews  who  are  in  the  world  keep 
these  days  (i4th  and  i5th  Adar)  as  festive,  and  send  gifts  to  each 
other."  The  festival  is  also  referred  to  in  2  Maccabees  xv,  36,  as 
"  the  day  of  Mordecai." 

This  book,  in  its  Greek  version,  has  additions  and  interpolations. 
Mordecai's  dream  is  prefixed  to  it;  at  the  end  twenty  lines  are 
added.  In  the  third  chapter  is  inserted  the  decree  of  Ahasuerus, 
and  additional  matter  in  chapters  iv,  v,  and  viii.  The  additions  to 
the  Hebrew  text  are  added  at  the  end  of  the  book  in  the  Vulgate. 
It  is  evident  that  they  formed  no  part  of  it  in  the  original  Hebrew; 
for  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  made  from  the  Hebrew  in  the  second 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  has  none  of  them. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  name  of  God  nowhere  occurs  in  the 
The  name  of  book,  although  there  were  several  occasions  on  which  it 
God  nowhere  might  have  been  used.  Mention  is  made  of  fasting 
(chap,  iv,  3,  16),  and  the  sleeplessness  of  the  king,  which 
leads  him  to  have  the  records  searched,  and  thus  Mordecai  is  raised 
to  power  (chap,  vi,  i-n).  The  writer  must  have  recognized  the 
providence  of  God  in  this.  But  why  did  he  refrain  from  using  God's 
name  ?  Riehm  supposes  that  it  was  intentionally  omitted,  to  guard 
against  its  profanation  at  the  Purim  feast,  as  the  author  intended 
the  book  to  be  read  during  those  joyful  festivities9  (chap,  ix,  22). 
This  seems  to  us  quite  probable ;  at  least,  we  know  of  no  better  rea 
son  for  the  omission. 

Various  opinions  have  been  held  respecting  the  Ahasuerus  of  this 
Ahasuerus  the  book.  The  Septuagint  and  Josephus  suppose  him  to  be 
abiyXof  profane  Artaxerxes,  but  the  almost  universal  opinion  among  the 
history.  moderns  is  that  Xerxes  is  intended.  Accordingly,  the 

question  arises  whether  the  events  related  in  Esther  harmonize  with 
the  known  history  of  Xerxes. 

In  the  second  year  of  his  reign  Xerxes  subdued  the  Egyptians  who 
had  revolted,  and  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  reign  he  started  on  his  ex 
pedition  for  the  conquest  of  Greece,  from  which  he  returned  within 
the  ye^r.  In  Esther  i,  3,  4,  we  find  that  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  made  a 
feast  b  the  third 'year  of  his  reign,  that  is,  soon  after  his  return  from 
Egypt,  and  before  he  started  for  Greece.  In  the  tenth  month  of 
the  seventh  year  of  his  reign  Esther  is  taken  in  to  Ahasuerus  in  his 
house  royal  (chap,  ii,  16),  that  is,  after  his  return  from 'Greece. 
Here  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  history  of  Xerxes.  It  is 
1  Chap,  xi,  6,  1-13.  f  In  Bleek's  Einleitung,  p.  407. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  319 

IK  I  surprising  that  the  author  of  the  book  passes  over  events  which 
had  no  necessary  connexion  with  his  subject.  According  to  Heiod- 
otus,  (vii,  8),  after  Xerxes  had  subdued  Egypt,  in  the  second  year  of 
his  reign,  he  gathered  together  the  Persian  nobles,  to  consult  them 
about  the  expedition  into  Greece.  This  must  have  been  in  the 
third  year,  and  it  explains  the  feast  which  lasted  one  hundred  and 
eighty  days  (chap,  i,  4). 

A  difficulty  meets  us  at  the  very  threshold  respecting  the  wives 
of  Xerxes.  According  to  Herodotus  (vii,  61  ;  ix,  109)  Amestris 
was  the  wife  of  Xerxes,  and  from  what  he  says  in  vii,  114  she  evi 
dently  outlived  him.  It  is  possible  that  this  may  be  Vashti,  the  de 
posed  queen,  whose  place  Esther  took  ;  or  Vashti  may  have  held 
the  position  of  a  "  secondary  wife,"  or,  at  a  later  period,  may  have 
been  restored  to  the  favour  of  Xerxes.  We  know  too  little  about  the 
private  relations  of  Xerxes  to  pronounce  any  positive  judgment  upon 
the  subject. 

In  giving  the  genealogy  of  Mordecai  it  is  said  that  he  was  "  the 
son  of  Jair,  the  son  of  Shimei,  the  son  of  Kish,  a  Benjamite,  who 
had  been  carried  away  from  Jerusalem  with  the  captivity  which  had 
been  carried  away  with  Jechoniah,  king  of  Judah,  whom  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  had  carried  away  "  (chap,  ii,  5,  6).  It  is 
probable  that  Kish  (from  whom  Mordecai  was  the  fourth  in  descent) 
was  carried  away  captive  from  Judah  by  Nebuchadnezzar  about  a 
hundred  years  before  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  and  for  this  reason  the 
author  traces  back  the  genealogy  of  Mordecai  no  farther  than  to  him. 
Certainly  there  is  no  necessity  of  inferring  from  the  passage  that 
Mordecai  himself  was  carried  away  in  this  captivity. 

Bleek's  first  objection  to  the  credibility  of  the  history  is  the  im 
possibility  of  supposing  that  a  Persian  despot,  even  if  sieek's  objec- 
induced  through  a  favourite  to  extirpate  all  the  Jews,  "r^Ibll^y  ^ 
would  publish  the  decree  everywhere  twelve  months  be-  Esther, 
forehand,  and  not  merely  secretly  for  the  governors,  but  for  the 
people  themselves.  But  may  it  not  have  been  Haman's  intention, 
by  giving  notice  so  long  beforehand  of  the  intended  slaughter, 
that  the  Jews  should  abandon  their  property  and  fly  for  their  lives  ? 
That  this  is  not  stated  in  the  account,  which  is  very  circumstantial, 
is  no  ground  of  objection,  as  the  motives  of  actors  in  the  world's 
history  are  generally  concealed.  Even  if  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  knew  the  real  motive  of  Haman,  which  is  not  probable,  yet 
he  might  have  omitted  to  state  it.  There  is  no  good  reason  for  sup 
posing  that  the  edict  against  the  Jews  applied  to  those  in  Judea,  for 
they  are  spoken  of  as  "  scattered  abroad  and  dispersed  among  the 
people"  (chap,  iii,  8). 


820  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Also  the  circumstance  that  the  king  should  not  revoke  the  bloody 
edict,  but  give  the  Jews  liberty  to  defend  themselves,  and  that  this  could 
have  resulted  in  the  slaughter  of  seventy-five  thousand  men,  subjects 
of  the  king,  Bleek  regards  as  incredible.  Unnatural,  too,  he  thinks  it 
to  be  that  the  king  should,  to  gratify  Esther,  issue  another  edict  allow 
ing  the  Jews  to  continue  the  slaughter  of  their  enemies  another  day 
in  Shushan.  But  are  the  facts  of  history  to  be  determined  by  supposed 
probabilities  ?  Are  there  not  various  acts  of  Xerxes  in  his  expedition 
into  Greece  which  are  strange,  and,  to  many  persons,  utterly  incredi 
ble  ?  How  many  both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times  have  di^be- 
lieved  and  ridiculed  the  story  that  he  cut  a  canal  through  the  penin 
sula  of  Acte  to  avoid  taking  his  fleet  around  Mount  Athos  ? 1  How 
many  improbabilities  crowd  into  the  history  of  Napoleon  ?  How 
strange  this  simple  fact,  that  the  king  of  Sweden  was  a  Frenchman  I 
(Bernadotte).  In  respect  to  massacres,  we  have  a  remarkable  (and 
infamous)  example  in  the  massacre  of  about  sixty  thousand  Protest 
ants  in  Frarfte  on  the  night  of  St.  Bartholomew. 

Bleek  also  thinks  it  hard  to  believe  that  all  Shushan  should  at  one 
time  (chap,  iii,  15),  through  Haman's  edict,  be  thrown  into  so  much 
fear,  and  at  another  should  have  rejoiced  (chap,  iii,  15)  on  account 
of  Mordecai's.  But  Bleek  misrepresents  the  passage,  for  it  is  not  said 
"all  Shushan  "  in  either  place,  but  simply  "  Shushan."  He  also  thinks 
it  improbable  that  the  king  should  have  issued  a  decree  that  every 
man  should  rule  in  his  own  house  ;  and  difficult  and  obscure  that 
Esther,  as  a  royal  spouse,  should  so  long  conceal  her  origin  from  the 
court,  the  king,  and  Haman  himself,  as  represented  in  the  history. 
But  in  matters  of  this  kind  we  have  no  means  of  determining  the 
limits  of  possibility — hardly  those  of  probability. 

The  Book  of  Esther  everywhere  abounds  with  numerous  particu- 
Force  of  the  ar-  lars,  dates,  and  names  of  persons,  and  there  is  but  one 
book60 abounds  possible  conclusion — it  is  genuine  contemporary  history,  or 
in  details.  //  js  a  fabrication.  But  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  suppose 
that  the  book,  considering  the  intimate  acquaintance  it  shows  with 
Persian  affairs,  could  have  been  fabricated  after  the  fall  of  the  Per 
sian  empire  (B.  C.  330).  Respecting  its  knowledge  of  Persian  affairs, 
Bleek  remarks  :  "  For  its  historical  character  the  conspicuity  of  many 
special  traits  seems  to  speak,  especially  the  mentioning  of  many  sin 
gle  individuals  otherwise  unknown,  the  seven  eunuchs,  the  seven 
highest  officers  of  Xerxes,  the  ten  sons  of  Haman.  The  customs 
snd  institutions  at  the  Persian  court,  in  part  at  least,  also  appear  to 
be  faithfully  and  vividly  portrayed."* 

1  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  about  the  truth  of  this.    Even  Grote  believes  it 

*  Einleitung,  p.  408. 


OF    THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  321 

But  on  the  supposition  that  Esther  was  written  during  the  Persian 
period,  when  the  supposed  events  were  recent,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  the  book  could  have  imposed  upon  any  considerable  number  of 
Jews. 

The  strong  proof  of  the  historical  character  of  Esther  is  fur 
nished  in  the  universal  observance  of  the  festival  of  The  festival  of 
Purim  (-H3,  lot)  by  the  Jews  (in  accordance  with  its  in-  £^|onan  a^ 
stitution  in  this  book),  and  so  named  from  the  casting  of  the  truth  o/ 
lots  by  Haman  (chaps,  iii,  7  ;  ix,  24).  We  have  already  Esther- 
seen  that  Josephus  speaks  of  the  festival  as  kept  by  all  the  Jews  in 
the  world,  and  it  is  still  kept  by  them  in  commemoration  of  their 
deliverance,  just  as  we  keep  the  Fourth  of  July  in  commemoration 
*f  the  declaration  of  our  national  independence. 

If  the  book  is  not  based  on  a  real  historical  fact — the  remarkable 
deliverance  of  the  Jews  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus — how  was  it  possi 
ble  for  its  author  to  make  the  Jews  believe  that  such  a  deliverance 
had  been  wrought  for  them,  and  that  the  feast  of  Purim  was  insti 
tuted  at  the  time,  and  that  they  had  kept  it  up  to  the  period  at  which 
the  book  was  written  ? 

Kamphausen  *  refers  with  approbation  to  the  opinion  of  Noldeke, 
that  the  Book  of  Esther  is  a  skilful  romance,  written  to  establish 
and  recommend  to  the  Jews  the  celebradon  of  the  Purim  festival, 
which  originally  was  a  purely  Persian  feast.  Fiirst  seems  inclined 
to  this  view,  for  he  says  :  "  The  festival  may  have  been  originally  i 
spring  feast,  which  was  borrowed  from  Persia"  (Heb.  Lex.).  Truly 
a  strange  notion,  that  the  Hebrews,  having  so  many  festivals  of  their 
own,  should  borrow  one  from  the  heathen  who  had  made  them  cap 
tives,  and  that  they  should  hold  it  near  the  time  of  the  passover ! 
Stranger  still  that  the  book  which  gave  such  a  perverse  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  festival  should  have  made  the  whole  Jewish  people 
believe  that  they  were  keeping  Purim  in  commemoration  of  a  great 
national  deliverance,  when,  in  fact,  they  were  doing  nothing  more 
than  observing  a  heathen  feast !  To  believe  that  the  Jews  were 
thus  deceived  is  more  difficult  than  to  believe  the  history  in  the 
book. 

Bleek  thirks  it  not  improbable  that  some  historical  fact  lies  at  the 
basis  of  the  book,  though  it  is  uncertain  what  it  is." 

THE  DATE  AND  AUTHOR  OF  THE  BOOK. 

It  is  very  probable  that  the  book  was  written  by  a  Jew  at  Susa 
during  the  Persian  dominion.      The  Persian  and  San-  probably 
skrit  words  in  it  would  indicate  its  Persian  origin,  and 

*In  Bleek's  Einleitung,  p.  407.  *  Ibid.,  p.  410. 

^OL.  L— 21 


323  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

the  minute  particulars  given  in  the  history  show  the  proximity  of 
the  writer  to  the  events.1 

According  to  the  Talmud,9  the  men  of  the  Great  Council  wrote 
out  (edited)  the  Book  of  Esther.  Aben-Ezra  and  most  of  the  rabbies 
attribute  it  to  Mordecai,  in  which  belief  many  Christian  theologians 
follow  them.  But  we  have  no  probable  proof  of  this,  though  it  is  not 
to  be  altogether  rejected. 

CHARACTER   OF   THE   BOOK. 

Some  Christian  scholars,  among  whom  is  Bleek,  take  exception  to 
Esther  on  account  of  the  spirit  of  revenge  found  in  it.  But  its 
admission  into  the  canon  was  not  based  on  its  containing  divine 
revelation,  or  wholesome  doctrine,  or  examples  for  our  imitation,  but 
because  it  contains  the  history  of  a  most  remarkable  deliverance 
wrought  out  by  Providence  in  behalf  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER   XL. 

THE    POETICAL    BOOKS    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


HPHE  poetical  books  include  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
•*•    Song  of  Solomon,  and  The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  although 
portions  of  others  are  poetical.     But  before  discussing  these  books, 
it  is  proper  for  us  to  consider  Hebrew  poetry. 

THE  POETRY  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

The  poetical  element  is  deeply  imbedded  in  the  nature  of  man, 
and  exhibits  itself  in  all  stages  of  intellectual  development,  among 
the  barbarous  as  well  as  the  most  highly  cultivated.  Poetry  is  the 
offspring  of  a  vivid  imagination  and  of  deep  emotion,  and  is  closely 
allied  to  eloquence.  It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  some  of  the 
sacred  writers,  under  the  mighty  influence  of  the  d'vine  Spirit,  pour 
forth  the  sublime  doctrines  of  theology,  the  practical  precepts  of  re- 
ligion,  and  their  joys  and  their  sorrows,  in  the  form  of  poetry  ;  o/ 
that  the  prophets,  when  the  fall  of  empires  and  the  glory  of  the  Mes 
siah's  kingdom  were  revealed  to  them  in  vision,  should  use  in  their 
descriptions  the  loftiest  poetical  language. 

1  Schrader  refers  the  book  to  the  Greek  period,  and  this  seems  to  be  the  view  of 
Bleek.  *  Baba  Bat  Furst,  p  TOO. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  323 

The  poetry  of  the  Hebrews  is  thus  of  a  peculiar  and  sacred  char 
acter,  and  may  be  called  epic,  when  it  narrates  the  dealings  of  God 
with  his  people,  of  which  Psalm  Ixxviii  is  an  example;  or  lyric,  when 
it  expresses  in  song  the  religious  experience  of  the  writer,  which  is 
the  character  of  most  of  the  Psalms;  or  didactic,  when  it  inculcates 
the  duties  of  life,  as  the  Books  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes;  or  dra- 
matic,  as  it  presents  itself  to  us  in  the  Book  of  Job ;  or  elegiac,  as  in 
the  Lamentations  of  Jetemiah. 

There  is  no  metre,  and  rarely  is  there  rhyme,  in  Hebrew  poetry, 
but  "  it  is  distinguished  by  a  certain  rhythmical  adjust-  characteristic* 
ment  and  distribution  of  the  periods  and  single  sen-  of  Hebrew  po- 
tences,  and  also  by  many  peculiarities  of  idiom,  form,  e 
and  meaning  of  words,  grammatical  constructions  and  inflections, 
which  are  not  usual  in  prose.  This  poetic  diction  is  found  not  only 
in  the  so-called  poetic  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  in  single 
inserted  sections  in  the  historical  books,  and  partly  also  in  the  pro 
phetic  writings ;  nevertheless,  in  the  different  books  and  sections 
in  various  degree,  and  with  a  gradual  transition  into  prose,  so  that 
a  very  sharp  distinction  cannot  be  well  made  between  poetry  and 
prose."1 

The  rhythm  of  Hebrew  poetry  consists  in  a  certain  harmonious  re 
lation  of  the  parts  or  members  of  the  single  verses  to  each  parallelism  In 
other,  called  the  parallelism  of  members.  This  paral-  Hel>rew  poetry, 
lelism  of  members  is  divided  by  Bishop  Lowth  into  the  synonymous, 
the  antithetical,  and  the  synthetical.  The  synonymous  consists  in  re 
peating  the  thought  of  the  first  member  in  the  second,  or  even  in 
several  following  members.  Of  this  kind  the  simplest  consists  of  two 
members,  of  which  the  following  are  examples : — 

"  How  he  had  wrought  his  signs  in  Egypt, 
And  his  wonders  in  the  field  of  Zoan." 

"  He  gave  up  their  cattle  also  to  the  hail, 
And  their  flocks  to  hot  thunderbolts." 

44  Seek  ye  Jehovah  while  he  may  be  found, 
Call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near." 

The  first  two  illustrations  are  taken  from  Psalm  Ixxviii,  which  is 
composed  almost  entirely  of  similar  members;  the  third  is  taken 
from  Isaiah  Iv,  6. 

The  second  kind  of  parallelism  is  the  antithetic,  in  which  the  second 
member  stands  in  contrast  with  the  first.  This  kind  of  parallelism 

•Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  81. 


324  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

abounds  in  the  Proverbs,  of  which  the  following  are  examples  from 

ch.  x,  2,  7  :— 

"  Treasures  of  wickedness  profit  nothing, 
But  righteousness  delivereth  from  death." 

1  '  The  memory  of  the  just  is  blessedness, 
But  the  name  of  the  wicked  shall  rot." 

The  third  kind  of  parallelism  is  the  synthetic,  which  consists  of 
several,  and  sometimes  of  many,  members,  closely  connected  to 
gether,  and  illustrating  one  subject.  Of  this  kind  the  following  is  an 
example  :  — 

"  I  have  been  young,  and  now  am  old  ; 
Yet  have  I  not  seen  the  righteous  forsaken, 
Nor  his  seed  begging  bread. 
Every  day  he  is  merciful,  and  lendeth  ; 
And  his  seed  is  blessed."  —  Psalm  xxxvii,  25,  26. 

In  the  first  of  these  lines  there  is  an  antithesis  between  the  past  and 
present,  while  in  the  two  following  pairs  of  lines  the  second  line  is  an 
enlargement  of  the  thought  in  the  first,  and  maybe  called  synonymous. 

The  description  of  a  virtuous  woman  in  Proverbs  xxxi,  10—31  is 
an  example  of  the  synthetic  parallelism,  in  which  the  members  are, 
for  the  most  part,  synonymous  or  antithetic  parallelisms. 

It  often  happens  in  Hebrew  poetry  that  a  single  thought  is  expressed 
in  a  single  sentence,  to  which  no  other  sentence,  either  synonymous 
or  antithetical,  corresponds  ;  this  may  be  termed  simple  rhythm  ;  as  — 

"  I  am  the  man  that  hath  seen  affliction  by  the  rod  of  his  wrath."  —  Lam.  Hi,  i 

What  has  been  stated  respecting  Hebrew  poetry  has  reference  to 
stanzas  of  the  *ts  l°g*cal  classification.     But  although  Hebrew  poetry 
•ame  number  has  no  prosody,  yet  the  members  of  the  stanzas  sometimes 
have  the  same  number  of  words,  and  form  rhyme  :—  - 


I  was  at  ease,  but  he  hath  broken  me  asunder  : 

He  hath  also  taken  me  by  my  neck,  and  shaken  me  to  pieces."—  Job  xvi,  IS. 


rmn 


"  Adah  and  Zillah,  hear  my  voice  ; 
Ye  wives  of  Lamech,  hearken  unto  my  speech 
For  I  have  slain  a  man  to  my  wounding, 
And  a  young  man  to  my  hurt."  —  Gen.  iv,  23. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  325 


"  Doth  the  wild  ass  bray  over  his  grass  ? 
Or  loweth  the  ox  over  his  fodder  ?  "  —  Job  vi,  5. 

Sometimes  the  two  poetic  members  are  of  unequal  stanzuof  un> 
length,  as  :- 


"  Ephraim  is  joined  to  idols  : 
Let  him  alone."  —  Hosea  iv,  17. 

At  other  times  the  harmony  is  expressed  by  four  members  of  un 
equal  length  :  — 


nrnaa 
irb 


"  For  my  life  is  spent  with  grief, 
And  my  years  with  sighing  : 
My  strength  faileth  because  of  mine  iniquity, 
And  my  bones  are  consumed."  —  Psalm  xxxi,  IQ. 

In  Habakkuk  iii,  17,  we  have  a  stanza  of  six  members  :— 

"  Although  the  fig  tree  shall  not  blossom, 
Neither  shall  fruit  be  in  the  vines  ; 
The  labour  of  the  olive  shall  fail, 
And  the  fields  shall  yield  no  meat  ; 
The  flock  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  fold, 
And  there  shall  be  no  herd  in  the  stalls." 

To  this  there  are  placed  in  antithesis,  verses  18,  19:  — 

"  Yet  I  will  rejoice  in  the  Lord, 

I  will  joy  in  the  God  of  my  salvation. 

The  Lord  God  is  my  strength, 

And  he  will  make  my  feet  like  hinds'  feet, 

And  he  will  make  me  to  walk  upon  mine  high  places. 


INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  XLI. 

THE     BOOK    OF    JOB. 

rPHIS  boos,  so  named  from  its  hero,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
•*•    in  the  canon,  and  has  given  rise  to  much  controversy  respecting 
its  age,  author,  and  object.     It  may  be  regarded  as  a  sacred  drama. 

We  have,  first,  the  prologue  ( chap,  i,  ii ) ;  secondly,  the  dialogue 
(chaps,  iii-xlii,  6);  lastly,  the  epilogue  (xlii,  7-17).  The  prologue 
The  work  di-  contains  a  brief  sketch  of  Job,  its  chief  personage,  who 
togue^aioSS  is  rePresente(i  as  a  Pious  man»  living  in  the  land  of  Uz, 
epilogue.  blessed  with  sons  and  daughters,  and  very  rich.  Satan, 
having  obtained  permission  from  God,  destroys  all  Job's  property, 
kills  his  children,  and  smites  him  with  sore  boils.  The  dialogues 
contain,  first,  the  lamentation  of  Job  over  his  calamities  (chap.  iii). 
After  this,  the  discussion  on  Job's  character  and  the  divine  govern 
ment  is  conducted  by  him,  Eliphaz,  Bildad,  and  Zophar,  in  which 
Job's  three  friends  argue  that  his  disasters  are  divine  judgments  for 
his  sins,  while  he  vindicates  himself,  and  maintains  that  the  ways  of 
Providence  are  inscrutable  (chaps,  iv-xxxi).  This  is  followed  by  the 
speech  of  Elihu,  who  acts  as  mediator  between  Job  and  his  friends 
(chaps,  xxxii-xxxvii).  The  four  following  chapters  (xxxviii-xli), 
with  the  exception  of  chap,  xl,  3-5,  contain  the  Almighty's  descrip 
tion  of  his  own  power  and  works,  and  his  expostulation  with  Job. 
In  chap,  xl,  3-5,  and  in  chap,  xlii,  1-6,  Job  humbles  himself  before 
God. 

The  epilogue  contains  God's  reproof  of  Job's  three  friends,  and  his 
command  to  them  to  offer  sacrifice  for  their  folly,  because  they  had 
not  spoken  right,  as  Job  had ;  also  a  statement  of  the  great  pros 
perity — far  greater  than  he  had  at  first — that  Job  enjoyed  in  his  lat 
ter  days. 

INTEGRITY  OF  THE  BOOK. 

Objections  have  been  made  in  modern  times  to  the  genuineness 
Modern  objeo-  °^  certain  parts  of  the  book.  Carpzov  supposed  that 
tions.  while  all  the  discourses  were  written  down  by  Job 

himself  before  the  time  of  Moses,  the  prologue  and  epilogue  were 
added  by  Samuel.  They  have  been  rejected  by  Stuhlman,  Bern 
stein,  Knobel,  and  some  others ;  but  their  genuineness  is  almost 
universally  conceded.  The  prologue  is  necessary  for  the  under 
standing  of  the  book,  and  without  it  Job's  character  and  his 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  327 

peculiar  afflictions  would  be  unknown.  Without  the  epilogue  the 
book  would  be  incomplete,  as  it  contains  a  vindication  of  Job,  and 
shows  divine  providence  in  bringing  him  safely  through  all  his  trials, 
and  making  his  latter  end  more  glorious  than  the  beginning.  The 
genuineness  of  both  the  prologue  and  the  epilogue  is  conceded  by 
Schrader,1  Bleek,2  and  Davidson.8 

Some  critics4  have  regarded  chaps,  xxvii,  u-xxviii,  28  as  a  later 
addition,  but  their  genuineness  is  almost  universally  conceded  by  the 
most  recent  critics.  The  description  of  the  hippopotamus  and  the 
crocodile  (chaps,  xl,  i5~xli,  34)  has  been  regarded  by  some  critics' 
as  an  interpolation,  but  its  genuineness  is  conceded  by  Schrader  * 
and  Bleek.7 

The  discourses  of  Elihu  (chaps,  xxxii-xxxvii)  have  The  objections 
been  rejected  as  spurious  by  many  critics.  They  are  |£eiJJ2  Ofe?he 
characterized  by  De  Wette  8  as  "  dull,  tedious,  artificial,  discourses  of 
and  obscure  in  their  contents  and  in  the  mode  of  their 
presentation."  He  also  says  that  "they  interrupt  the  connexion  be 
tween  the  discourses  of  Job  and  those  of  God,  and  darken  the  contrast 
in  which  they  stand  to  each  other ;  that  they  anticipate  what  the  lat 
ter  discourses  contain,  even  making  them  superfluous,  while  they  offer 
a  solution  of  mysteries  by  reflection,  which,  according  to  the  latter 
discourses,  is  to  be  found  in  intuitive,  believing  resignation." 

Elihu,  it  is  true,  is  not  mentioned  among  the  friends  of  Job  (chap, 
ii,  ai);  nor  is  he  named  at  the  end  of  the  book  where  Job's  three 
friends  are  reproved  and  commanded  by  God  to  offer  sacrifice 
(chap,  xlii,  7-9).  Job  and  the  three  friends  are  the  principal  person 
ages.  Elihu,  being  a  young  man.  is  silent,  until  Job  and  his  friends 
have  ended  the  discussion,  when  he  speaks,  reproving  both  parties. 
He  acted,  in  fact,  as  mediator,  and,  accordingly,  it  was  not  necessary 
to  consider  at  all  what  he  said,  when  the  decision  is  made  at  the 
end  (chap,  xlii,  7-9)  concerning  the  discussion.  That  Elihu 's 
speeches  are  interposed  between  Job's  discourses  and  the  Almighty's 
answer  does  not  in  any  degree  imply  their  spuriousness.  Every 
thing  depends  upon  the  taste  of  the  writer.  We  are  not  authorized 
to  lay  down  rules  in  such  matters,  and  demand  that  every  genuine 
drama  or  poem  shall  square  exactly  with  our  gratuitous  canons. 

We  can  by  no  means  agree  with  De  Wette  respecting  the  dullness 
of  the  speeches  of  Elihu.  They  have  no  little  merit,  Quality  of  EU- 
though  as  a  whole  they  have  scarcely  the  strength  of  hu's  ^cown*. 
the  ether  addresses.  But  this  may  be  what  the  author  intended. 

*De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  549.       "Pp.  660,  661.         Vol.  ii,  pp.  200-202. 

4  Eichhorn  and  others.  '  Ibid.  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  550k 

f  Einleitung,  p.  664.  *  De  Wette — Schrader,  pp.  546   547. 


328  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

Why  should  a  young,  rash  man  speak  with  all  the  power  and  wisdom 
of  mature  years  ?  Do  all  Shakspeare's  characters  speak  with  the 
same  force  and  wisdom?  Even  if  we  grant  that  the  speeches  were 
to  set  forth  great  principles,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  all 
the  interlocutors  must  speak  with  the  same  ability,  whatever  their 
years  or  wisdom  might  be. 

The  linguistic  peculiarities  of  Elihu's  discourses  afford  no  decisive 
proof  of  having  proceeded  from  another  author  than  of  the  rest  of 
the  book. 

That  Elihu  calls  Job  by  name,  which  is  not  done  by  any  of  the 
other  speakers,  grows  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case.  For,  as  Elihu 
acted  as  mediator  between  Job  and  his  friends,  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  distinguish  Job  from  them.  We  confess  that  we  do  not 
see  how  the  discourses  of  Elihu  disturb  the  harmony  of  the  book. 
They  do  not  break  in  as  something  foreign  to  the  subject,  and  they 
have,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  the  same  style  as  the  rest.  The  inter 
polation  of  six  chapters  (about  one  seventh  of  the  whole)  in  the 
body  of  such  a  work  is  extremely  improbable,  and  such  a  view  is  not  to 
be  adopted  except  for  the  most  cogent  reasons,  which  in  the  present 
instance  do  not  exist.  The  genuineness  of  the  discourses  of  Elihu 
has  been  denied  by  Stuhlmann,  Bernstein,  De  Wette,  Eichhorn, 
Ewald,  Hirzel,  Knobel,  Delitzsch,  Schrader,  Davidson,  Bleek,  and 
others.  On  the  other  hand,  their  genuineness  has  been  defended  by 
Jahn,  Bertholdt,  Rosenmtiller,  Staudlin,  Umbreit,  Koster,  Stickel, 
Herbst,  Welte,  Havernick,  Schlottmann,  Keil,  and  others.  Bunsen 
and  Kamphausen  have  adopted  the  theory  that  these  discourses  were 
inserted  by  the  author  himself  as  an  addition  after  finishing  the  orig 
inal  work.1 

THE  CHARACTER  AND  DESIGN  OF  JOB. 

Here  the  question  arises,  Are  we  to  regard  the  whole  history  of 
Job  as  entirely  fictitious,  the  creation  of  the  imagination  of  the  au 
thor  of  the  work,  or  altogether  true,  or  as  having  merely  a  substratum 
of  truth  on  which  the  book  is  founded  ?  The  last  supposition  seems 
the  only  tenable  one. 

The  assumption  that  the  book  throughout  is  a  real  history  in- 
The  Book  of  vo^ves  us  m  difficulties.  The  discourses,  in  their  present 
job  hardly  a  form,  are  too  elegant,  studied,  and  poetical,  ever  to  have 
been  delivered  extempore.  In  the  account  of  Job's  pros 
perity  in  his  latter  days  (chap,  xlii,  12-17)  the  number  of  his  sons 
and  daughters  is  the  same  that  he  had  before  his  afflictions ;  while 
the  number  of  his  sheep,  camels,  oxen,  and  asses,  is  just  double  of 

1  In  Bleek,  p.  661. 


;NTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  339 

what  ne  had  in  the  beginning.  These  numbers  do  not  bear  the 
stamp  of  being  real  history,  but,  on  the  contrary,  appear  to  be  arti 
ficial.  Nor  can  we  accept  as  literally  true  the  account  of  Satan's 
presenting  himself  among  the  sons  of  God  before  Jehovah,  and  of 
his  obtaining  from  him  permission  to  bring  upon  the  holy  servant 
of  God  so  many  dreadful  afflictions,  to  prove  to  Satan  the  sincerity 
of  Job's  piety.  But  even  if  these  things  had  occurred,  no  man  could 
have  known  them  unless  God  had  revealed  them  to  him,  which, 
under  the  circumstances,  is  very  improbable. 

But  the  hypothesis  that  Job  never  existed — which  was  the  view 
of  one  of  the  rabbies  in  the  Talmud,  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
and  of  Le  Clerc1 — is  to  be  at  once  rejected,  for  he  is  mentioned  in 
Ezekiel  (chapter  xiv,  14) :  "Though  these  three  men,  Noah,  Daniel, 
and  Job  were  in  it,  they  should  deliver  but  their  own  souls  by  their 
righteousness,  saith  the  Lord  God."  To  refer  in  such  language  to 
a  fictitious  character,  and  associate  him  with  men  who  had  a  real 
existence,  is  extremely  unnatural.  Besides,  it  is  foreign  to  the  char 
acter  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  to  invent  fictitious  personages,  and 
was  not  common  even  among  the  Greeks. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  say  with  certainty  how  much  of  the  his 
tory  is  real;  but  we  may  assume  as  true  that  Job  was  a  man  of 
distinguished  piety  and  virtue,  an  eminent  citizen  of  the  land 
of  Uz,  who  met  with  Heavy  calamities  and  afflictions,  from  which  he 
ultimately  recovered.  His  friends,  also,  are  most  probably  real 
personages.  According  to  the  tradition  of  the  Jews  Job  belonged 
to  the  seven  heathen  prophets  of  primitive  times,  and  among  these 
were  his  three  friends,  Eliphaz,  Bildad,  and  Zophar.  He  is  repre 
sented  as  a  pious,  generous  man,  and  in  many  respects  is  said  to 
have  stood  even  higher  than  the  patriarch  Abraham.3  Bleek8  re 
gards  the  book  as  resting  on  an  historical  basis,  and  even  Schrader4 
thinks  the  matter  of  the  book  was  derived  from  tradition.  The 
materials  furnished  the  writer,  either  by  tradition  or  written  memo 
rials,  were  worked  up  into  the  present  highly  artistic  and  sublimely 
poetical  form. 

The  design  of  the  author  in  writing  it  nowhere  appears,  either  in 
the  prologue  or  epilogue,  but  must  be  inferred  from  a  consideration 
of  the  whole.  From  the  prologue  of  the  book  we  learn  that  Job 
*  was  perfect  and  uptight,  and  one  that  feared  God  and  eschewed 
evil;"  and  in  the  epilogue  it  is  stated  "that  the  Lord  turned  the 
captivity  of  Job  .  .  .  :  also  the  Lord  gave  Job  twice  as  much  as  he 
had  before."  But  nowhere  is  there  assigned  any  reason  for  the  great 

1  Bleek,  p  654.  *  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  81. 

*  Einleitung,  p.  655.  *  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  552. 


3.0  OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

sufferings  that  God  brought  upon  him.  Yet  the  palpable  infer 
ence  is,  that  however  much  a  good  man  may  suffer,  Providence 
brings  him  safely  through  his  afflictions,  and  in  the  end  makes  him 
happier. 

But  it  is  also  evident  from  the  discourses  that  the  author  of  Job 
intended  to  refute  the  idea  that  a  man's  sufferings  are  necessarily  the 
result  of  his  sins,  and  an  indication  of  the  Almighty's  disp'easr.re. 
At  the  same  time  he  inculcates  God's  sovereignty,  the  inscrutability 
of  his  counsels,  and  the  duty  of  implicit  faith  in  him,  and  resignation, 
without  questioning  or  murmuring,  to  his  providence.  The  author 
does  not  deny  that  men  are  ever  punished  for  their  sins  in  this 
world.  This  is  evident  from  the  language  attributed  to  Job,  in 
which,  in  several  places,  the  doctrine  of  retribution  here  is  clearly 
taught.  See  xxi,  17-20;  xxvii,  13-23. 

In  the  discussions  in  the  book  the  question  of  retribution  has 
reference  to  the  present  life  only.  The  doctrine  of  the  soul's  im 
mortality  and  future  retribution  is  nowhere  taught,1  though  it  was 
probably  held  by  the  author. 

THE   DATE  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BOOK  AND   ITS  AUTHOR. 

Respecting  the  age  in  which  the  book  was  written,  there  has  been 
Dau^  of  com  a  Sr^at  diversity  of  opinion.  Carpzov,  Eichhorn,  Jahn, 
position  un-  Stuhlmann,  and  Bertholdt,  supposed  it  was  written  be 
fore  the  time  of  Moses.  The  Talmud  at  one  time  as 
serts  that  it  was  written  by  Moses  ;  at  another,  that  it  was  composed 
by  an  Israelite,  who  returned  to  Palestine  from  the  Babylonian  cap 
tivity.2  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  others  attributed  the  book  to  Moses. 
It  has  been  referred  to  the  age  of  David  or  Solomon  by  Luther, 
Doederlein,  Staudlin,  Rosenmiiller.  Welte,  Havernick,  Schlottmann, 
and  Keil.  Others  refer  it  to  the  seventh  century  before  Christ,  as 
De  Wette,  Schrader,  Gesenius,  Umbreit,  Ewald,  Stickel,  and  Da 
vidson. 

1  The  passage,  Job  xix,  26,  as  it  stands  in  the  English  version,  refers  to  a  resur 
rection,  but  it  is  not  supported  by  the  Hebrew,  which  reads  :  "I  know  that  my 
redeemer  (goeT)  liveth,  and  at  last  he  shall  stand  on  the  earth ;  and  after  these  things 
have  smitten  my  skin,  shall  this  be  ;  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God,  whom  I  shall  be 
hold  for  myself,  and  my  eyes  shall  see,  and  not  a  stranger."  Here  Job  expresses 
the  conviction  that  God  will  vindicate  him  from  all  the  charges  of  his  friends,  and 
he  had  just  before  expressed  the  wish  that  his  words  were  written  in  a  book  (for  fu 
ture  reference).  This  harmonizes  with  the  close  of  the  book,  where  God  appears  to 
Job  and  vindicates  him,  and  Job  then  says,  "  I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of 
the  ear,  but  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee."  The  Septuagint,  Pe?hito-Syriac,  and  Targum 
refer  the  passage  to  a  temporal  restoration,  which  seems  demanded  by  the  context 

'Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  80. 


OF   THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  331 

No  solid  arguments  can  be  found  for  either  the  pre- Mosaic  cr  the 
Mosaic  date.  The  language  of  Job  clearly  indicates  a/^/-Mosaic  age. 
The  archaisms  of  the  Pentateuch  do  not  appear  in  it.  The  language 
JMH,  masculine  pronoun,  he,  which  is  found  about  two  of  Jobpost-Mo- 
hundred  times  in  the  Pentateuch  as  a  feminine,  meaning 
she,  occurs  but  once,  as  a  mistake,1  for  ^n,  the  regular  feminine. 
This  regular  feminine  occurs  but  eleven  times  in  the  whole  Penta 
teuch,  but  occurs  five  times  in  the  Book  of  Job.  ^K,  for  n^?N,  thtsc, 
found  in  the  Pentateuch,  does  not  occur  in  Job.  The  names  of 
constellations  and  the  mention  of  the  Zodiac  most  probably  belong 
to  a  post-Mosaic  time.3 

Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that  Moses  would  have  written  such  a  work, 
which  seems  to  contradict  one  of  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  namely,  that  obedience  to  God  is  rewarded  with  temporal 
blessings,  and  that  disobedience  is  followed  by  the  judg-  Not  probable 
ments  of  heaven.  Moses  promised  the  Israelites  that  JJe1  author  of 
if  they  were  obedient,  God  would  put  upon  them  none  Job. 
of  the  diseases  of  Egypt :  "  For  I  am  the  Lord  that  healeth  thee  " 
(Exod.  xv,  26).  Besides  this,  Moses  was  too  much  employed  with 
his  own  legislation  to  engage  in  such  a  task.  Further,  the  artistic 
character  of  the  poem  seems  clearly  to  indicate  a  date  far  later  than 
Moses.  And  between  the  time  of  Moses  and  that  of  David  no  one 
would  think  of  placing  the  authorship  of  such  a  book.  We  are 
thus  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  we  cannot  attribute  the  compo 
sition  of  Job  to  a  period  earlier  than  that  of  David,  and  few  will  re 
fer  it  to  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  or  later.  Accordingly, 
we  find  that  the  supposed  time  of  the  composition  fluctuates  between 
the  reign  of  David  and  the  Captivity. 

The  Book  of  Job  seems  to  have  been  well  known  to  Ezekiel  ths 
prophet,  and  to  his  contemporaries,  from  the  way  in  which  he  speaks 
of  Job  (xiv,  14,  20).  It  is  probable  that  Jeremiah  made  use  of  the 
Book  of  Job.  Compare  Jer.  xx,  14-18  with  Job  iii;  Jer.  xx,  7,  8 
with  Job  xii,  4  and  xix,  7  ;  Lam.  ii,  16  with  Job  xvi,  9,  10.  There  are 
also  other  passages  that  are  similar  in  both  books.  In  Isaiah,  com 
pare  xix,  5  with  Job  xiv,  u  ;  lix,  4  with  Job  xv,  35.  In  these  pas 
sages  there  are  close  resemblances.  We  also  find  passages  quite 

'Job  xxx:  u.  The  pronouns  are  transposed,  Kin,  masculine,  At,  being  put  with 
a  feminine  roun,  and  XTT,  she,  with  a  masculine  noun.  The  Masorites  have  made 
the  correction  in  the  margin. 

«V-»03,  Chesil,  Orion;  fift*1?,  Kimah,  Pleiades;  B&  and  O*>5,  Ash,  Wagon,  the 
Great  Bear;  fli"^^,  Mazzaroth,  the  Zodiac  (chaps,  ix,  9  ;  xxxviii,  31,  32).  The  first 
two  constellations  are  found  also  in  the  prophet  Amos  (chap,  v  8),  and  the  last  in 
2  Kings  xxiiv,  5. 


332  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

similar  in  Amos  and  in  Job.  But  whether  the  prophets  made  use  of 
this  book,  or  the  author  of  the  book  used  their  writings,  cannot 
be  certainly  determined,  unless  we  find  independent  proof  of  the 
priority  of  Job. 

The  most  flourishing  period  of  Hebrew  poetry  was  the  age  of  Da 
Probably  writ-  v^  anc*  Solomon,  and  to  the  latter  it  seems  most  natural 
ten  in  the  time  to  refer  this  poem.  This  is  confirmed  by  peculiarities  of 
language  common  to  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  and  Job. 
The  verb  oSy,  alas,  to  exult,  is  found  only  in  Job  xx,  18 ;  xxxix,  13, 
and  in  Proverbs  vii,  18.  The  noun  niSann,  guiding,  steering,  occurs 
only  in  Proverbs  (five  times)  and  in  Job  xxxvii,  12.  ^DK  is  found  in 
Prov.  xvi,  26  as  a  verb,  and  in  Job  xxxiii,  7  as  a  noun.  It  is  found 
nowhere  else.  Tfl,  calamity,  occurs  three  times  in  Job,  and  once  in 
Proverbs  ;  nowhere  else.  "tytsta  N3^,  to  crush  in  the  gate,  is  found  only 
in  Job  v,  4  (Hithpael),  and  in  Proverbs  xxii,  22  (Piel).  To  drink 
iniquity  like  water  (Job  xv,  16),  to  drink  scorning  like  water  (chap 
ter  xxxiv,  7),  like  to  drink  violence  (Prov  xxvi,  6),  a  phraseology 
which  appears  nowhere  else.  P13K*  destruction,  occurs  three  times  in 
Job,  once  in  Proverbs,  and  once  in  Psalm  Ixxxviii ;  nowhere  else. 
fVBNn,  deliverance, purpose,  occurs  six  times  in  Job,f0ur  times  in  Prov 
erbs  ;  elsewhere  once  in  Isaiah,  and  once  in  Micah.  There  are  some 
other  points  of  affinity  in  the  language  of  these  books. 

In  Job  xxii,  24;  xxviii,  16,  mention  is  made  of  the  gold  of  Ophir. 
This  reference  is  especially  suitable  to  the  age  of  Solomon  (who 
brought  gold  from  Ophir),  but  could  be  also  used  for  two  or  three 
centuries  after,  as  we  find  the  same  reference  in  Isaiah  xiii,  12,  and 
in  Psalm  xlv,  9,  but  would  not  likely  occur  before  the  time  of  David 
and  Solomon.  We  may  therefore  conclude,  with  great  probabil 
ity,  that  Job  was  written  in  the  time  of  Solomon ;  and  the  peace 
ful  reign  of  that  monarch  afforded  abundance  of  leisure  for  such  a 
work. 

Respecting  the  author  of  the  book  and  his  native  land,  it  is  certain 
The  author  an  that  he  was  an  Israelite,  dwelling,  most  probably,  in 
£u?herant  j£  Southern  Judea.  There  is  not  the  slightest  proof  of  its 
flea.  having  been  written  in  any  other  language  originally, 

and  afterwaids  translated  into  Hebrew.1  The  local  allusions  refer 
to  a  hilly  country,  a  land  of  brooks  that  fail  in  dry  weather,  where 
ice  and  snow  are  occasionally  seen  ;  a  tract  through  which  the  cara 
vans  from  Tema  and  Sheba  (Sabaeans)  passed,  and  were  often  disap 
pointed  in  finding  that  the  brooks  had  become  dry  (Job  vi,  15-20). 

1  At  the  end  of  the  Book  of  Job,  in  the  Septuagint,  it  is  said :  "  This  is  translated 
from  th«  Syriac  book."  But  this  remark  at  such  a  late  period  is  of  little  or  no  value 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  333 

Reference  is  also  made  to  the  river  Jordan  (chap,  xl,  23).  The  de 
scription  of  the  behemoth  (hippopotamus)  and  the  crocodile  (levia 
than)  (chaps,  xl,  is-xli,  34)  shows  that  the  writer  must  have  visited 
Egypt,  and  that  these  animals  made  upon  him  a  deep  impression, 
from  the  fact  that  they  were  strange  to  him. 

Job  himself,  the  hero  of  the  book,  lived  in  the  land  of  Uz,  which 
Gesenius  locates  "  in  the  northern  part  of  Arabia  Deserta,  between 
Idumea,  Palestine,  and  the  Euphrates,  adjacent  to  Babylon  and  the 
Euphrates  "  (Heb.  Lex.). 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  the  age  in  which  Job  himself  lived. 
The  absence  of  all  reference  to  the  Mosaic  legislation  The  time  in 


in  the  discussions  does  not  prove  that  the  author  of  the 


uncer- 
book  placed  him  before  the  time  of  the  Hebrew  law-  tain, 

giver,  since,  though  he  lived  after  the  Mosaic  legislation,  it  would 
have  been  improper  to  represent  him  and  his  friends,  who  were 
without  the  pale  of  Israel,  as  discussing  the  principles  of  that  legis 
lation,  or  drawing  illustrations  from  it.  Had  he  lived  many  centu 
ries  before  the  author  of  the  book  but  little  would  probably  have 
been  known  of  his  history,  and  he  would  not  have  been  considered 
of  sufficient  importance,  or  prominent  enough  in  the  public  eye,  to 
be  the  hero  of  the  story.  Accordingly,  we  think  it  most  likely  that 
he  lived  near  the  age  of  David,  a  short  time  before  the  author  of  the 
book.  We  attach  no  importance  to  the  statement  at  the  end  of  the 
book  in  the  Septuagint,  that  his  name  was  at  first  Jobab,  the  fifth  in 
descent  from  Abraham. 

CONCLUDING   REFLECTIONS. 

The  Book  of  Job  has  been  considered,  in  all  ages  of  the  Church, 
as  one  of  the  most  sublime  of  the  Bible,  and  is  sur-  Gibbon's  ac- 
passed  only  by  some  of  the  grandest  passages  in  Isaiah,  J^^Sn! 
and  by  the  prayer  of  Habakkuk.  Gibbon,  speaking  ityof  Job. 
of  Mohammed's  composition  of  the  Koran,  remarks:  "  His  loftiest 
strains  must  yield  to  the  sublime  simplicity  of  the  Book  of  Job, 
composed  in  a  remote  age,  in  the  same  country,  and  in  the  same 
language,"1  It  is  evident  that  the  utterances  of  Job's  friends  were 
often  wrong,  for  God  is  represented  as  finally  reproving  them  on 
account  of  their  speeches,  and  even  Job  himself  modifies,  in  some 
of  his  later  words,  what  he  had  before  said.  And  although  he 
is  commended  at  the  close  of  the  book  for  his  teachings,  yet  God 
demands  of  him:  ''Who  is  this  that  hideth  counsel  (wisdom)  by 

Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol,  v.  p.  no.  The  passage  is  not 
quite  correct  respecting  the  language,  as  Job  was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  the 
Koran  in  Arabic. 


834  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

words  wfthout  knowledge?"    Job  replies:  "Therefoie  I  have  ut 
tered  that  I  understood  not." 

The  book  has  its  value  apart  from  its  exalted  poetical  character, 
as  illustrating  the  inscrutable  providence  of  God,  and  the  delivery 
of  his  people  out  of  all  their  afflictions. 


CHAPTER  XLII. 

THE     BOOK    OF     PSALMS.1 

'"PHIS  book  contains  one  hundred  and  fifty  psalms  of  a  highly  de 

A    votional  character,  and  expressive  of  deep  religious  experience, 

The  book  di-  suitable  to  all  conditions  of  religious  life,  and  without  a 

vided  intoflve  parallel  in  the  annals  of  religious  literature.     The  whole 

collection  is  divided  into  five  parts  or  books.     The  first 

includes  Psalms  i-xli ;  the  second,  Psalms  xlii-lxxii ;  the  third,  Psalms 

Ixxiii-lxxxix ;  the  fourth,  Psalms  xc-cvi ;  the  fifth,  Psalms  cvii-cl. 

At  the  end  of  each  of  these  parts  is  found  a  doxology,  which  is  also 

given  in  the  Septuagint,  of  varying  form,  which  was  intended  to  mark 

a  division,  after  the  manner  of  the  five  Books  of  Moses.   The  doxology 

at  the  end  of  the  first  division  is :  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 

from  everlasting,  and  to  everlasting.   Amen,  and  amen"  (Psa.  xli,  13). 

Of  these  psalms  the   superscriptions  attribute  seventy-three  to 

David;    twelve   have   the  superscription,  ^DxS,   to  or  for   Asaph, 

where  we  are  to  understand  that  the  preposition  (S)  indicates  Asaph 
as  the  author,  in  the  same  way  that  psalms  are  designated  as  having 
been  written  by  David  (in1?).  Eleven  are  attributed  in  the  same 
way  to  the  sons  of  Korah  ;  one  of  them  (Psalm  Ixxxviii),  more  spe 
cifically,  to  Heman  the  Ezrahite.  One  is  ascribed  to  Moses,  one  to 
Ethan  the  Ezrahite,  two  to  Solomon,  and  fifty  are  anonymous.  The 
authors  of  our  English  version  *  have  sometimes  mistranslated  the 
titles  of  the  psalms. 

THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  SUPERSCRIPTIONS. 

Many  recent  critics  regard  the  superscriptions  as  possessing  little 

The  origin  of  or  no  authority,  and  they  attribute  them,  not  to  the  au» 

the  superscrip-  thors,  but  rather  to  the  collectors  of  the  psalms.     It  is 

not  easy  to  determine,  in  every  case,  whether  the  super- 


1  The  Hebrew  title  is  ti^rjft,  tehillim,  hymns,  psalms.    Septuagint,  tfatyto!,  song* 
tung  to  a  stringed  instrument. 

*  The  correct  superscription  is  given  in  the  margin  when  not  given  in  the  text 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  835 

scriplion  was  put  there  by  the  author  of  the  psalm  or  not.1  In  ex 
amining  the  superscriptions  contained  in  the  Septuagint,  we  find 
that  of  the  seventy-three  psalms  attributed  to  David  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  his  name  is  omitted  from  five  of  them  ;  and  that  his  name  is 
affixed  to  fourteen  which  are  anonymous  in  the  Hebrew  text.  Also, 
the  name  of  Solomon  is  omitted  from  the  superscription  of  Psalm 
cxxvii.  With  these  exceptions,  the  same  names  stand  in  the  Sep 
tuagint  as  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  text. 

When  the  Septuagint  version  was  made,  it  is  very  evident  that 
some  of  the  superscriptions  had  already  become  obscure,  as  is  clear 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  are  translated;  and  this  is  a  proof  of 
the  antiquity  of  the  superscriptions. 

Gesenius  remarks  on  the  word  rwoS,  to  the  chief  musician,  found 
in  the  superscription  to  fifty-three  psalms  :  "  This  inscription  is 
wholly  wanting  in  all  the  psalms  of  a  later  age,  composed  after  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  and  its  worship ;  and  its  significance  was 
already  lost  in  the  time  of  the  LXX."  Accordingly,  the  su 
perscriptions  to  the  psalms  in  which  this  word  occurs  must  have  been 
affixed  before  the  Babylonian  captivity.  In  the  superscription  to 
Psalm  Ix,  ascribed  to  David,  it  is  stated  that  it  was  composed 
"  when  he  strove  with  Aram-naharaim  (Syria  of  the  rivers),  and  with 
Aram-zobah,  when  Joab  returned,  and  smote  of  Edom,  in  the  Valley 
of  Salt,  twelve  thousand."  It  is  evident  that  this  superscription  was 
not  taken  from  2  Sam.  viii,  13,  for  it  is  there  said  that  David  smote 
in  the  Valley  of  Salt  eighteen  thousand ;  nor  was  it  taken  from 
i  Chron.  xviii,  12,  for  there  the  number  is  the  same  as  in  the  pas 
sage  in  Samuel.  The  conclusion  is,  that  the  superscription  must 
have  been  affixed  by  David  himself,  or  by  some  one  soon  after, 
who  had  information  independent  of  the  Books  of  Samuel. 

In  the  superscription  to  the  seventh  Psalm  it  is  stated  that  David 
sang  it  concerning  the  words  of  Cush  the  Benjamite.  There  is 
no  mention  in  the  history  of  David  of  any  one  of  this  name,  so 
that  the  superscription  must  have  been  affixed  when  the  affair  that 
gave  rise  to  the  psalm  was  still  recent. 

If  the  superscriptions  had  been  affixed  from  mere  conjecture,  it  is 
probable  that   instead  of  fifty   anonymous  psalms,  we  The 
would  have  none  of  that  description.     We  might  have  scriptions  not 
expected  that  many  of  them  would,  in  that  case,  have  been  °°njecl 
assigned  to  Solomon,  while,  in  fact,  but  two  bear  his  name.     One  is 
ascribed  to  Moses,  one  to  Heman,  and  one  to  Ethan,  both  Ezrahites. 

1  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (f  429)  led  the  -vay  in  the  denial  of  the  genuineness  of 
these  inscriptions. — Leontius  *f  Byzantiuir,  liber  iii,  Adversus  Incorrupticolas  et 
Nestor. 


33G  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

There  is  nothing  in  these  psalms  to  lead  any  one  to  suppose  that 
they  must  have  been  written  by  these  authors,  and  the  names  must 
have  been  affixed,  if  not  by  the  authors  themselves,  by  some  one, 
on  historical  grounds.1 

"  It  is  not  improbable,"  says  Bleek,  "  that  the  Hebrew  poets 
themselves,  when  they  wrote  and  put  into  circulation  their  songs, 
sometimes  designated  them  with  their  names  or  the  occasion  of 
their  being  written,  as  is  altogether  common  among  the  Arabian 
poets,  and  was,  at  least,  very  often  the  case  with  the  Hebrew 
prophets."3 

The  question  then  arises,  Is  there  internal  evidence  that  the  su- 
Opinions  of  perscriptions  of  some  of  these  psalms  are  wrong  ?  Bleek 

modem  critics  asserts  that  in  some  cases  they  are  evidently  false^  of 
on  the  accu-  *  J  J 

racy  of  the  su-  which  he  gives  Psalms  hx,  cxxn,  and  cxhv  as  examples, 

perscriptions.  But  ^  j§  nQt  cjear  tQ  ug  that  j)avj^  was  not   the  author 

of  these  psalms.  On  the  contrary,  Psalm  cxliv  contains  internal  evi 
dence  of  having  been  written  by  David,  as  it  is  said  in  verse  10, 
"Who  delivereth  David  his  servant  from  the  hurtful  sword;  "  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  psalm  that  conflicts  with  this  view.  Respect 
ing  Psalm  lix,  it  is  stated  that  it  was  written  "  when  Saul  sent,  and 
they  watched  the  house  to  kill  him."  This  psalm  is  in  every  respect 
suitable  to  the  occasion  with  the  exception  of  one  word  in  the  En- 
lish  version,  "  the  heathen."  The  word  cn'j,  goyim,  rendered 
"  heathen,"  has  the  accessory  idea  of  enemies,  oppressors.  It  is  not 
strange  that  David,  when  speaking  of  his  enemies  among  the  Israel 
ites,  should  speak  also  of  wicked  men  in  general.  We  would  have 
no  good  reason  to  expect  that  he  would  name  Saul,  whom  he  al 
ways  treated  mercifully.  Nor  do  we  see  anything  in  Psalm  cxxii 
that  might  not  have  been  written  by  David.  Bleek  also  rejects,  as 
not  belonging  to  David,  Psalms  xiv,  liii,  cviii,  and  cxxiv.  Of  these, 
two  contain  the  same  passage,  which  might  indicate  their  composition 
during  the  Babylonian  captivity,  but  may  have  no  reference  to  that 
event :  "  O  that  the  salvation  of  Israel  were  come  out  of  Zion ! 
when  the  Lord  bringeth  back  the  captivity  of  his  people,  Jacob 
shall  rejoice  and  Israel  shall  be  glad  "  (Psalm  xiv,  7  ;  liii,  6).  As 
both  of  these  psalms  contain  in  their  superscriptions  the  expression 
"  To  the  chief  musician,"  they  must  have  been  written  while  the 
temple  was  still  standing;  for  Gesenius,  with  great  propriety,  refers 
the  psalms  with  this  superscription  to  the  period  preceding  the 
captivity.  The  contents  of  the  two  psalms  have  no  reference  to  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  but  to  the  general  wickedness  of  men,  and 

'It  is  not  likely  that  Moses  himself  would  have  added  to  his  name  "man  ol 
God  ; "  this  is  not  the  usage  in  the  Pentateuch.  '  Page  617. 


OK   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  337 

the  Psalmist  prays  for  the  salvation,  the  conversion,  of  the  people, 
which  was  to  come  forth  from  Mount  Zion,  where  Jehovah  especial 
ly  dwelt  in  the  tabernacle  of  Israel.  The  Psalmist  uses  Jacob  and 
Israel  as  synonymous,  which  he  would  not  probably  have  done 
had  the  nation  already  been  divided  into  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and 
Israel.  To  bring  back  the  captivity  (notj/  3^)  does  not  always  imply 
t\e  returning  of  a  people  to  their  native  country ',  for  it  is  said,  "  the 
Lord  turned  the  captivity  of  Job  "  (xlii,  10).  Also  in  Hosea  vi,  u, 
the  phrase  means  to  restore  to  prosperity  and  righteousness  :  "  O  Judah, 
ne  hath  set  a  harvest  for  thee,  when  I  return  the  captivity  of  my 
people  ;  "  and  in  Ezekiel  xvi,  53,  etc. 

Bleck  thinks  that  the  following  psalms,  though  attributed  to 
David  in  the  superscriptions,  were  probably  not  written  by  him : 
iv,  xxiii,  xxv,  xxvi,  xxviii,  xxix,  xxxi,  xxxiv,  xxxvii,  xl,  David's  author 

......       .  .       ...  .  ...  .  ....  -    slap  of  certain 

Ivin,  lix,  Ixxxvi,  cm,  cxxxi,  cxxxm,  cxxxix,  cxhn,  and  pga,ras  denied 
cxlv.  But  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  denying  byBieek. 
these  psalms  to  be  David's.  De  Wette  acknowledges  as  undoubted 
ly  belonging  to  David,  Psalms  vi,  viii,  xv,  xviii,  xxiii,  xxix,  xxx, 
xxxii,  ci.  Schrader  questions  the  Davidic  authorship  of  Psalm  xxiii, 
but  he  adds  to  De  Wette's  list,  iii,  vii,  xi.  Hitzig  attributes  to  David 
fourteen  psalms,1  and  Ewald  eleven.3  No  better  proof  can  be  fur 
nished  of  the  arbitrary  character  of  some  of  the  German  criticisms 
than  the  fact  that  two  of  the  psalms  which  Ewald  attributes  to  David 
are  referred  by  Hitzig  to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  about  nine 
hundred  years  later  than  David. 

Dr.  Davidson,  while  he  rejects  a  part  of  the  superscriptions  to  the 
psalms,  nevertheless  remarks :  "  The  best  method  of  proceeding  is 
to  assume  the  alleged  Davidic  authority  till  internal  evidence  proves 
the  contrary."  s 

In  Psalm  li.  after  an  earnest  prayer  for  forgiveness  of  individual 
sin,  David  is  represented  as  praying :  "  Do  good  in  thy  good  pleas 
ure  unto  Zion  :  build  thou  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  "  (verse  18).  It 
is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  this  language  is  a  proof  that  the 
prayer  was  uttered  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  For 
the  first  part  of  the  language  was  suitable  in  the  age  of  David, 
and  the  last  may  have  been  applicable  also,  for  Jerusalem  may  not 
have  been  completely  walled  in  at  this  period  of  David's  reign ;  or 
the  language  may  be  figurative,  imploring  a  return  of  prosperity. 
The  last  verse  of  the  psalm  speaks  of  the  sacrifices  in  which  God 
tvould  then  delight. 

Psalms  iii.  iv,  vii-xiii,  xv-xix. 

'  Psalms  iii,  iv,  vii,  viii,  xi,  xviii,  xix,  xxiv,  xxxii,  ci,  ex  ;  and  xv,  xxix  he  attrib 
utes  to  the  time  of  Davi^.  'Vol.  ii,  p.  255. 
VOL.  L— 22 


338  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

Bleek,  while  acknowledging  that  David  is  the  author  of  this  psalm, 
thinks  that  the  last  two  verses  were  added  at  the  time  of  the  Baby 
lonian  captivity.1  If  they  necessarily  refer  to  that  period,  we  would 
greatly  prefer  this  view  to  the  rejection  of  the  psalm  as  David's. 

In  2  Sam.  xxii  there  is  given  a  psalm  as  David's  which  is  the 
same  as  Psalm  xviii,  and  has  substantially  the  same  superscription 
Also  in  T  Chron.  xvi,  7  a  psalm  is  attributed  to  David  that  corre 
sponds  in  part  to  the  first  fifteen  verses  of  Psalm  cv,  which  is  anony 
mous.  We  are,  therefore,  authorized  in  attributing  to  David  the 
whole  of  this  psalm,  which  is  anonymous.  In  2  Sam.  xxiii,  i,  David 
is  rilled  "  the  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel."  Here  the  foundation  for 
OUT  belief  of  his  high  poetic  character  is  laid,  and  we  can  easily  be 
lieve  that  he  wrote  a  large  number  of  psalms. 

Respecting  the  anonymous  psalms,  De  Wette  remarks : a  "  Many 
of  the  auony-  of  them  may,  indeed,  belong  to  David  and  his  contem- 
mous  psalms,  poraries,  but  they  cannot  be  ascertained  with  certainty.  ' 
It  is  probable  that,  in  some  instances,  psalms  appear  as  anonymous 
which  originally  were  united  to  one  psalm,  or  more,  that  preceded, 
and  had  a  superscription  giving  the  author.  Psalms  ix  and  x  are 
united  in  the  LXX,  and,  probably,  made  but  one  originally.8 

Twelve  psalms  are  attributed  to  Asaph  :  Psa.  1,  Ixxiii-lxxxiii.  That 
Psalms  attrib-  Asaph  wrote  psalms  is  stated  in  2  Chronicles  xxix,  30 : 
ated  to  Asaph.  «  Hezekiah  the  king,  and  the  princes,  commanded  the 
Levites  to  sing  praise  unto  the  Lord  with  the  words  of  David  and  of 
Asaph  the  seer.  And  they  sang  praises  with  gladness."  According 
to  i  Chron.  xvi,  5,  Asaph  was  at  the  head  of  the  singers  in  the  time 
of  David.  Schrader  thinks 4  we  cannot,  with  any  certainty,  ascribe 
these  psalms  to  Asaph,  and  Bleek  ns  unfavourable  to  the  genuineness 
of  any  of  them,  and  thinks  that  Psa.  Ixxx,  Ixxxi,  Ixxxiii,  and  perhaps 
Ixxxii,  belong  to  a  poet  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel ;  while  Psalms  Ixxiv-- 
Ixxvi,  Ixxix,  and  perhaps  the  rest,  belong  to  a  Jewish  poet  near  the 
exile.5  Dr.  Davidson  °  thinks  that  Asaph  wrote  Psalm  1,  and  prob 
ably  Ixxiii,  but  no  more  of  those  assigned  to  him.  Keil  attributes 
seven  of  these  psalms  to  the  Asaph  of  David's  time,  and  the  remain 
ing  five  to  later  members  of  his  family.7  There  are  only  two  of  these 
psalms  that  cannot  well  be  referred  to  the  Davidic  Asaph,  Ixxiv  and 
Ixxix,  which,  from  their  allusions,  seem  to  belong  to  a  later  age 
than  that  of  David  or  Solomon.  They  may,  indeed,  belong  to  a 
later  Asaph 

Ten  psalms  are  attributed  to  the  sons  of  Korah  :  xlii,  xliv,  xlv-xlix, 

1  Page  633.  *  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  523. 

'  This  was  an  ancient  Jewish  tradition.  4  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  523. 

6 Page  6ao.  "Vol.  ii,  p.  258.  'Introduction,  voi.  i.  p.  460. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  339 

Uxxiv,  Ixxxv,  Ixxxvii.  Psalm  Ixxxviii  is  inscribed  both  Psalms  attrib. 
to  the  sons  of  Korah,  and  is  also  called  the  Psalm  of  uted  to  UM 
Heman  the  Ezrahite.  The  Korahites  are  mentioned  in  s 
i  Chron.  ix,  19  as  being  keepers  of  the  gates  of  the  tabernacle  in 
the  times  of  Samuel  and  David;  also  in  2  Chron.  xx,  19,  in  the  time 
of  Jehoshaphat,  it  is  stated  that  the  children  of  the  Korahites  stood 
up  to  praise  the  Lord.  It  is  thus  impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  these 
psalms.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  earliest  of  them  was  written  in 
the  time  of  Solomon,  and  perhaps  none  of  them  later  than  the  time 
of  Hezekiah.  Psalm  Ixxxv  opens  with  the  declaration :  "  Lord, 
ihou  hast  been  favourable  unto  thy  land  :  thou  hast  brought  back 
the  captivity  of  Jacob."  As  this  is  directed  to  the  chief  musician, 
indicating  that  the  temple  was  standing,  it  is  best  to  suppose  that 
there  is  no  reference  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  but  perhaps  a  de 
liverance  from  the  Assyrian  power  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah. 

Psalm  Ixxii  is  inscribed  to  Solomon,  but  perhaps  in  this  instance 
the  S  is  to  be  translated  for,  as  the  prayer  seems  to  be  Authorship  of 
made  for  Solomon,  or  rather,  for  him  as  a  type  of  the  other  v®^- 
Messiah,  and  it  would  seem  by  David,  as  at  the  end  of  the  prayer  it 
is  said  :  "  The  prayers  of  David  the  son  of  Jesse  are  ended."  Psalm 
cxxii  is  attributed  to  Solomon,  and  we  see  no  reason  to  doubt  it. 
Psalm  Ixxxviii  is  attributed  to  the  sons  of  Korah,  but  it  is  afterwards 
added  in  the  superscription  :  "  A  Psalm  of  Heman,  the  Ezrahite." 
But  Heman  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  as  appears  from  i  Chron. 
vi,  33  :  "  Of  the  sons  of  the  Kohathites ;  Heman,  a  singer."  Now 
the  sons  of  Korah  were  Kohathites  (Exodus  vi,  18-21).  Heman  is 
mentioned  in  i  Kings  iv,  31  in  connexion  with  Ethan  the  Ezrahite, 
to  whom  Psalm  Ixxxix  is  attributed  :  "  He  (Solomon)  was  wiser  than 
all  men ;  than  Ethan  the  Ezrahite,  and  Heman,"  etc.  Heman  arid 
Ethan  were,  it  appears,  contemporaries  of  Solomon.  There  is  no 
good  reason  for  denying  to  Heman  the  authorship  of  Psalm  Ixxxviii, 
nor  to  Ethan  that  of  Ixxxix.  It  is  true  that  the 'latter  psalm  repre 
sents  the  crown  of  David  as  cast  down  to  the  ground.  But  it  is 
very  probable  that  this  refers  to  the  rebellion  of  Absalom,  when 
David  fled  from  Jerusalem. 

Psalm  xc  is  attributed  to  Moses,  and  Bleek  remarks :  "  There  is 
no  sufficient  ground  for  denying  it  to  be  his,  and  it  certainly  bears  a 
very  ancient  stamp."  Of  the  fifty  anonymous  psalms  David,  no 
doubt,  wrote  a  considerable  number,  but  it  is  difficult  to  decide  how 
many.  Two  of  the  Psalms,  at  least  (cxxvi  and  cxxxvii),  were 
written  after  the  Babylonian  captivity.  The  Talmudists  *  call  those 
psalms  which  give  neither  the  name  of  the  author  nor  the  occasion, 
^inleitung,  p.  618.  *  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  etc.,  p.  73. 


340  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

aim  and  end,  orphans.     They  ascribed  these  psalms  to  various  per 
sons;  among  them  to  Adam,  Moses,  Abraham,  Melchizedek,  etc. l 

Hitzig,  and  a  few  other  critics,  have  referred  some  of  the  psalms 
to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees.  But  such  a  date  for  any  of  them 
is  generally  discarded.  It  has  met  with  decided  opposition  from 
Gesenius,  and  finds  no  sympathy  with  De  Wette.  The  canon  was 
closed  long  before  the  Maccabean  age,  and  inspiration  had  ceased. 
On  this  subject  Bleek  well  remarks :  "  In  fact,  there  is  no  psalm  in 
our  Psalter  which  on  any  sufficient  ground  can  be  placed  later  than 
the  time  of  Nehemiah,  about  300  years  before  the  age  of  the  Macca 
bees,  and  but  few  bring  us  down  so  far  as  the  age  of  Nehemiah."  * 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  COLLECTION  OF  THE  PSALMS. 

The  first  question  that  here  arises  is.  Did  our  Book  of  Psalms  take 
its  present  form  from  successive  additions  at  different  times,  or  were 
the  Psalms  collected  at  once,  and  formed  into  a  book,  as  we  now  have 
them?  The  question  has  been  differently  answered.  Keil's  view 
Ken's  theory  *s  as  f°N°ws  :  "  Our  collection  of  the  Psalms  has  been 
of  the  origin  of  made  at  one  time,  and,  it  would  seem,  under  the  charge 
of  one  man,  on  account  of  the  principle,  which  is  easily 
recognized  running  through  it,  of  internal  and  real  affinity  of  the 
Psalms,  of  resemblance  in  their  subject-matter,  and  of  identity  in 
tendency  and  destination.  According  to  this  real  principle  of  re 
semblance  and  analogy  in  the  individual  songs,  the  first  place  in  the 
collection  is  allotted  to  the  psalms  of  David  and  his  contemporaries, 
namely,  Asaph  and  his  choir,  Ethan,  Heman,  and  the  other  sons  of 
Korah,  who  were  reckoned  the  creators  and  masters  of  psalmody. 
Then,  according  to  the  prevalent  use  of  the  two  divine  names,  Jeho 
vah  and  Elohim,  which  divides  them  into  two  classes,  the  psalms  of 
the  master-singers  were  distributed  into  three  books,  so  that  the  first 
book  was  the  portion  assigned  to  the  Jehovah  psalms  of  David ;  the 
stwndbook  to  the  Elohim  psalms  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  of  Asaph,  of 
David,  of  Solomon,  and  of  some  unknown  authors;  and  the  third 
book  to  the  remaining  psalms  of  Asaph  and  of  the  sons  of  Korah, 
which  are  in  part  of  a  mixed  character,  that  is,  Jehovah-Elohistic, 
and  in  part  purely  Jehovistic.  .  .  . 

"  The  other  part  of  the  collection  has  been  arranged  according  to 
the  same  law,  taking  the  order  of  time  into  account.  In  this  way 
the  psalm  of  Moses  (xc),  as  the  oldest,  has  been  placed  at  the  head 

'Ibid.,  66.  Furst,  however,  does  not  think  that  the  Talmudists  really  supposed 
that  Adam  wrote  any  of  them,  but  that  such  an  author  would  suit  them. 

8  Einleitung,  pp.  623,  624.  Delitzsch  is  said  to  lean  towards  a  Maccabean  date 
tor  Psalms  Ixxiv  and  Ixxuc. 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  341 

of  that  collection  followed  by  (a)  a  decade  of  anonymous  psalms  be 
longing  to  the  period  from  Solomon's  reign  till  the  exile  (Psa.  xci-c)  ; 
(l>)  a  series  of  songs  of  the  age  of  the  exile  and  on  to  Ezra  (Psa. 
ci-cxix)  ;  (c)  the  collection  of  pilgrim  psalms  (Psa.  cxx-cxxxiv)  ; 
(d)  the  last  group,  temple  and  hallelujah  psalms  (Psa.  cxxxv-cl).MI 

On  the  other  hand,  Bleek  thinks  the  collection  was  formed  at 
different  times  :  the  first  two  sections  (i-lxxii)  before  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  and  that  the  other  three  (Ixxiii-cl),  most  probably,  were 
added  by  Nehemiah.* 

Keil's  view  cannot,  as  a  whole,  be  fully  adopted  ;  and  Bleek's  opin 
ion,  so  far  as  it  acknowledges  that  a  collection  of  psalms  was  made 
before  the  Babylonian  captivity,  is,  no  doubt,  true.  To  obtain  a  clear 
view  of  the  matter,  we  must  advert  to  certain  historical  facts. 

In  i  Chron.  xv,  16-27  it  is  stated  that  David  spake  to  the  chief 
of  the  Levites  to  appoint  their  brethren  to  be  singers.  We  accord 
ingly  find  that  Chenaniah  was  the  leader  of  the  singers.  David  ap 
pointed  Levites,  of  whom  Asaph  was  chief,  to  thank  and  praise  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel,  and  delivered  into  the  hand  of  The  singing  of 
Asaph  and  his  brethren  first  a  psalm  8  to  thank  the  Lord,  onSewwo* 
The  psalm  is  composed  of  Psalm  cv,  1-15  ;  xcvi,  1-9;  snip. 
a  few  verses  of  cvi,  and  a  few  from  some  other  source.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  we  have  in  i  Chron.  xvi,  7-36  but  a  part  of  all  that 
was  sung  on  the  occasion  of  David's  bringing  the  ark  of  God  into  Jeru 
salem.  Again,  in  the  time  of  David,  we  find  two  hundred  and  eighty- 
eight  persons  were  instructed  in  the  songs  of  the  Lord,  at  the  head 
of  whom  were  Asaph,  Jeduthun,  and  Heman  (i  Chron.  xxv,  6,  7). 

When  the  temple  was  dedicated  to  Jehovah  the  Levites  praised 
the  Lord,  according  to  David's  appointment,  with  instrum  ents  of 
music  (2  Chron  vii,  6).  Jehoshaphat  also  appointed  singers  unto  the 
Lord  (2  Chron.  xx,  21);  and  Jehoiada  carried  out  the  arrangement 
made  by  David  with  respect  to  singing  (2  Chron.  xxiii,  18).  A 
more  important  passage  still  is  2  Chron.  xxix,  30,  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  **  Hezekiah  the  king,  and  the  princes,  commanded  the 
Levites  to  sing  praise  unto  the  Lord  with  the  words  of  David,  and 
if  Asaph  the  seer  " 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  that  David  instituted  the  singing 
of  psalms  as  a  part  of  divine  worship,  and  that  in  the  A  collection  ID 


time  of  Hezekiah  there  was  a  collection  of  the  psalms,  JjJ^JSne   2 
which  at  least  embraced  those  of  David  and  Asaph.  Hezekian. 

At  the  end  of  the  seventy-second  Psalm  it  says:  "The  prayers 

1  Introduction  to  Old  Testament  in  Clark's  For.  Theo.  Lib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  464,  465. 

•Einleitung,  pp.  625,  626. 

'There  is  no  word  in  the  original  corresponding  to  "psalm." 


343  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE   STUDY 

of  David  the  son  of  Jesse  are  ended."  This  is  followed  by  eleven 
psalms  of  Asaph.  But  David  did  not  write  all  of  these  seventy-two 
psalms,  for  seven  of  them  are  ascribed  to  the  sons  of  Korah  and  one 
to  Asaph,  and  some  are  anonymous,  though  at  least  several  of  these 
were  in  all  probability  written  by  David. 

It  is  very  probable  that  the  statement,  "  The  prayers  of  David 
the  son  of  Jesse  are  ended,"  was  originally  placed  at  the  end  of  all 
his  collected  prayers  or  psalms,  if  not  by  the  author  himself,  by  some 
one  soon  after  they  were  written,  and  that  a  part  of  them  were  re 
moved  to  their  present  position  in  the  collection  by  the  last  collec 
tor  and  arranger  of  the*  Psalms,  probably  by  Ezra  or  Nehemiah. 
The  psalms  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  and  the  one  of  Asaph,  now  found 
in  the  first  seventy-two  psalms,  were  probably  inserted  by  the  final 
collector.  If  the  psalms  of  David  found  in  the  last  part  of  the  col 
lection  had  been  composed  subsequently  to  those  in  the  first  half 
their  position  could  be  easily  explained,  but  this  is  not  probable. 

Here  the  question  arises,  Upon  what  principles  did  the  collector 
on  what  prin-  proceed  in  arranging  the  Psalms?  Keil  states,  as  we 

pfaimT  ar-  have  seen> that  those  Psalms  of  David  in  which  the  name 
ranged?  Jehovah  predominates  were  placed  in  the  first  book, 

while  those  in  which  Elohim  predominates  were  put  with  similar 
psalms  in  the  second  book,  while  the  third  book  presents  no  uniform 
ity  in  respect  to  the  use  of  the  divine  names.  But  Psalms  Ixxxvi, 
ci,  ciii,  cix,  ex,  cxxii,  cxxiv,  cxxxi,  cxxxviii,  cxl-cxlv,  are  ascribed 
to  David,  and  so  is  a  part  of  cv,  (i  Chron.  xvi,  7)  ;  and  they  are 
either  entirely  or  partly  Jehovistic,  and  have  been  excluded  from 
the  first  book  on  some  different  ground  from  that  of  the  divine 
names.  Of  these  psalms  of  David,  cxxii,  cxxiv,  cxxxi,  and  cxxxiii  are 
songs  of  degrees,1  and  are  placed  with  eleven  other  psalms  bearing 
a  similar  name.  In  some  of  the  psalms  of  David,  in  the  first  part  of 
the  collection,  Elohim  is  found  quite  often.  In  those  of  Asaph  the 
name  Jehovah  generally  prevails,  and  this  is  true  of  the  psalms  of 
the  sons  of  Korah. 

If  Jehovah  were  exclusively  used  in  certain  psalms,  and  Elohim  in 
others,  there  might  have  been  some  reason  for  arranging  them  with 
reference  to  these  names.  But  to  determine  the  arrangement  by 

1  Different  explanations  have  been  given  of  this  name.  Gesenius  thinks  it  most 
probable  that  "the  name  refers  to  the  peculiar  rhythm  obvious  in  some  of  them,  by 
which  the  sense  advances  by  degrees •,  or  steps,  some  words  of  a  preceding  clause  be 
ing  repeated  at  the  beginning  of  the  succeeding  one,  with  additions  and  amplifica 
tion,  so  that  the  sense,  as  it  were,  ascends;  e.  g.,  Psa.  cxxi :  I.  '  I  will  lift  up  mine 
eyes  unto  the  hills  from  whence  cometh  MY  HELP.  2.  MY  HELP  cometh  from  tht 
LORD.  3.  He  will  not.'  etc." 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  343 

considering  whether  Jehovah  or  Elohim  is  used  the  oftener  in  them 
seems  very  artificial,  and  admits  of  serious  doubt,  and  it  seems  im 
possible  to  state  certainly  the  grounds  of  the  classification  in  respect 
to  the  most  of  them. 

THE  VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  PSALMS. 

Almost  every  variety  is  found  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  :  didactic 
poems,  as  Psalms  xxxvii,  xlix,  and  1 ;  hymns,  or  songs  of  Great  varietj 
ptaise  to  Jehovah,  as  viii,  xix,  civ;  psalms  of  thanksgiv-  ^^P^11118- 
ing,  as  xxxiv,  xcii,  xcv,  xcviii ;  psalms  of  penitence,  as  xxxviii,  li ; 
historical  psalms,  as  Ixxviii,  cv  ;  Messianic  psalms,  as  ii,  xvi,  xxii,  xl,  xlv, 
Ixxii,  ex.  It  is  impossible  to  classify  them  very  definitely,  as  many  of 
them  are  not  limited  to  a  single  subject. 

THE  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  PSALMS. 

Bleek  is  of  the  opinion  that  some  of  the  psalms  underwent  changes 
at  the  hands  of  later  poets,  who  revised,  abridged,  or  enlarged  them 
to  adapt  them  to  the  various  relations  of  the  people  and  to  divine 
service,  just  as  we  modify  our  hymns;  and  that,  before  the  psalms 
received  their  fixed  form  as  a  part  of  the  canon,  minor  changes 
were  made  in  orthography  and  language.1 

That  later  poets  revised  the  psalms  is  destitute  of  all  proof,  and 
it  is  not  natural  to  suppose  that  subsequent  writers  would  alter  the 
language  of  David  and  other  great  poets,  especially  when  no  neces 
sity  existed  for  making  changes.  Nor  do  we  see  any  proof  that  the 
psalms  have  suffered  much  by  the  errors  of  transcribers.  In  2  Sam. 
xxii  we  have  a  psalm  of  David  consisting  of  fifty  verses.  As  the 
books  of  Samuel  were  written  in  the  age  of  Solomon,  or  soon  after- 
terwards,  it  is  interesting  to  compare  this  early  written  psalm  with 
psalm  xviii,  in  the  collection,  bearing  the  same  inscription.  The 
difference  between  the  two  is  but  slight,  and  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  greater  changes  occurred  in  the  other  psalms. 

THE  IMPRECATIONS  IN  THE  PSALMS. 

There  are  passages  in  the  Psalms — contrary  to  their  generally  edi 
fying  character — which  are  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  Examples  of 
teachings  of  Christ,  and  may  be  termed  imprecatory,  imprecation. 
In  Psalm  Iviii,  6-10  we  have  the  following  imprecation  :  "  Break 
their  teeth,  O  God,  in  their  mouth  :  break  out  the  great  teeth  of  the 
young  lions,  O  Lord.  Let  them  melt  away  as  waters.  .  .  .  The 
righteous  shall  rejoice  when  he  seeth  the  vengeance :  he  shall  wash 
his  feet  in  the  blood  of  the  wicked,"  etc.  Again,  in  Psalm  cxxxvii,  8,  9, 
'Einleitung,  pp.  632-635. 


344  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  STUDY 

written  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  occurs  the  following:  "0 
daughter  of  Bab) Ion,  who  art  to  be  destroyed;  happy  shall  he  be, 
that  rewardeth  thee  as  thou  hast  served  us.  Happy  shall  he  be, 
that  taketh  and  dasheth  thy  young  children  against  the  stones." 

In  Psalm  Ixix  David  imprecates  curses  upon  his  enemies :  "  Pour 
out  thine  indignation  upon  them,  and  let  thy  wrathful  anger  take 
hold  of  them.  .  .  .  Let  them  be  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  the  liv 
ing,  and  not  be  written  with  the  righteous." 

Respecting  these  passages  it  must  be  observed  that  the  impera- 
Tbe  impreca^  tive  mood  in  Hebrew  is  often  used  for  a  simple  future.1 
^notupon  "Break  their  teeth,  O  God,"  is  equivalent  to,  "Thou 
mies.  wilt  break,"  etc.  "  Pour  out  thy  wrath,"  for,  "  thou  wilt 

pour  out  thy  wrath."  Sometimes  a  verb  in  the  future  tense  is  un 
necessarily  rendered  by  the  imperative,  and  may  be  used  to  express 
results  prophetically.  But,  after  making  every  allowance  for  the 
Hebrew  idiom,  there  will  remain  passages  that  contain  imprecations 
on  the  wicked,  and  the  question  arises,  How  far  are  they  inconsist 
ent  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity  ?  Under  the  old  dispensation  the 
rule  was  "  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth ;  "  but  our  Savioui 
teaches  us  to  love  and  pray  for  our  enemies,  i.  e.,  e#$(>o/,  private  ene 
mies,  not  public  foes.  St.  Paul  on  one  occasion  said  to  the  high- 
priest  Ananias,  "God  is  about  to  smite  thee,  thou  whited  wall' 
(Acts  xxiii,  3);  and  he  writes,  "Alexander  the  coppersmith  did  me 
much  evil :  the  Lord  will  reward  him  according  to  his  work " 
(2  Tim.  iv,  14).  A  Christian  may  heartily  wish  that  the  violators  of 
the  great  principles  of  morality  and  religion  may  in  this  world  re 
ceive  condign  punishment.  It  is  necessary  to  the  existence  and 
well-being  of  society  that  the  wicked  should  be  punished,  and  a 
Christian  is  not  called  upon  to  extend  his  benevolence  so  far  as  to 
make  laws  a  mere  rope  of  sand.  The  pious  Israelites  of  old,  finding 
themselves  surrounded  by  powerful  nations  deeply  sunk  in  idolatry 
and  crime,  the  deniers  of  the  true  God,  and  the  oppressors  of  Israel 
and  having  in  their  sacred  books  the  account  of  the  extermination 
of  the  Canaanites  by  divine  command  for  their  crimes  and  abomi 
nable  idolatries,  would  naturally  wish  and  pray  for  the  destruction  of 
those  whose  conversion  to  the  true  God  and  whose  moral  reforma 
tion  they  deemed  hopeless. 

Respecting  the  bitter  language  employed  towards  Babylon  in 
Psalm  cxxxviii,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Israelites  had 
spent  there  a  severe  captivity,  and  that  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  had 
predicted  the  judgments  of  God  which  would  fall  upon  Babylon,  and 
her  utter  ruin.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  author  of  the  psalm, 
1  See  Roedigtr's  Gesenius*  Heb.  Gram.,  pp.  232,  233. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  345 

jpeaking  of  Babylon  as  "  to  be  destroyed,"  pronounces  the  man  h;-.ppy 
that  will  aid  in  blotting  out  all  her  inhabitants,  young  and  old.  But 
with  all  these  concessions  to  their  genuine  theocratic  spirit,  it  is  still 
true  that  some  of  the  passages  in  the  psalms  are  not  models  for  the 
imitation  of  Christians.  They  belong  to  the  old  dispensation. 


CHAPTER  XLIII. 
THE    BOOK     OF     PROVERBS. 

^PHIS  book,  called  in  Hebrew  ''hwv,1  and  bearing  the  superscription, 
Proverbs  of  Solomon  (noSi?  "S^o  )  ,  son  of  David,  king  of  Israel,  con 
sists  of  the  short  pithy  sayings,  the  sage  remarks,  and  the  striking 
comparisons  of  Solomon,  to  which,  in  the  last  two  chapters,  are  added 
the  words  of  Agur  and  King  Lemuel. 

The  first  nine  chapters  treat  of  the  blessings  of  wisdom  and  the 
dangers  of  unchastity.  The  second  section  (chapters  consists  of  four 
x-xxiv)  has  the  superscription,  "  The  Proverbs  of  Solo-  se«tlons- 
mon,"  and  contains  moral  and  religious  precepts  and  prudential 
maxims.  The  third  section  (chaps,  xxv-xxix)  contains,  as  stated  in 
the  superscription,  the  "  Proverbs  of  Solomon  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  copied  out,"  and  do  not  differ  materially  in 
their  character  from  the  foregoing.  The  last  section  contains  the 
"  Words  of  Agur,  the  son  of  Jakeh,"  the  proverbs  (chap,  xxx)  con 
sisting  of  moral  and  philosophical  reflections  ;  and  the  "  Words  of 
King  Lemuel,  the  proverbs  which  his  mother  taught  him,"  enjoining 
upon  him  temperance  and  justice,  and  describing  the  qualities  of  a 
virtuous  woman  (chap.  xxxi). 

THE  GENUINENESS  OF   THE  PROVERBS  ATTRIBUTED  TO  SOLOMON. 

That  Solomon  wrote  Proverbs  is  expressly  stated  in  i  Kings 
iv,  32:  "He  spake  three  thousand  proverbs:  and  his  songs  were  a 
thousand  and  five."  In  the  Book  of  Proverbs  there  are  eight  hun 
dred  and  forty-seven  verses,  which  scarcely  make  so  many  proverbs. 
[t  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  would 
soon  perish,  and  thus  there  is  presumptive  proof  of  their  genuine 
ness.  Our  collection  does  not  contain  one  third  of  what  he  wrote, 
and  thus  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  proverbs  of  others 


,  Mashal,  a  similitude,  an  apothegm,  a  proverb,  a  poem.    Septuagint, 
uia  ;  Vulgate,  Proverbium. 


346  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

have  been  attributed  to  Solomon.  Nor  are  these  proverbs  unworthy 
of  Solomon  as  a  whole,  nor  do  we  find  any  among  them  that  are  un 
suitable  to  him.  And  the  very  fact  that  the  last  two  chapters  in  the 
collection  are  attributed  respectively  to  Agur  and  to  Lemuel,  shows 
a  clear  discrimination  in  making  the  collection. 

With  characteristic  skepticism,  De  Wette  remarks  on  the  Prov- 
pirst  part  of  erbs :  "  It  is  nowhere  said  that  the  first  collection  was 
g^nu£eiyCsoi-  ma-de  or  caused  by  Solomon  himself,  and  can  by  no 
omon's.  means  be  proved;  but  it  certainly  belongs  to  the  most 

flourishing  period  of  Hebrew  literature."  Schrader  observes:  "In 
justice,  a  large  share  in  the  composition  of  the  Proverbs  them 
selves — especially  in  the  collection  (chaps,  x-xxii,  16)  which  in  gen 
eral  contains  the  oldest  proverbs — must  be  conceded  to  Solomon. 
It  is  probable  that  in  the  order  of  time  these  are  followed  by  the 
proverbs  in  chaps,  xxii,  i6-xxiv;  xxv-xxix,  next  to  which,  in  time, 
stands  the  large  section  chaps,  i,  7~ix,  which,  on  account  of  its 
relation  to  the  Book  of  Job,  and  because  in  form  and  contents  it 
perceptibly  departs  from  chaps,  x-xx,  16,  as  well  as  from  chaps, 
xxv-xxix,  is  to  be  referred  to  a  later  period,  perhaps  to  the  seventh 
century  "  (B.  C.).1  The  last  two  chapters,  he  thinks,  belong  to  a 
still  later  age. 

Bleek's  view  is  about  the  same.  He  regards  chaps,  x-xxii,  1-16 
as  in  all  probability  the  oldest  collection,  though  he  thinks  that  in 
its  present  form  it  can  hardly  have  proceeded  from  Solomon,  but 
doubtless  contains  many  genuine  proverbs  of  his ;  and  that  to  this  sec 
tion,  chaps,  xxii,  ly-xxiv,  22,  and  chap,  xxiv,  23-34,  have  been 
added.  He  confesses  that  it  cannot  be  determined  whether  these 
small  sections  were  added,  along  with  chap,  xxv  and  the  following 
chapters,  by  Hezekiah's  men,  or  were  already  found  united  to  the 
central  section ;  but  in  no  event  could  they  have  been  added  later  than 
the  time  of  Hezekiah:  and  that  it  cannot  be  clearly  made  out  when 
chaps,  xxx  and  xxxi  were  added ;  possibly  by  Hezekiah's  men,  though 
probably  at  a  later  period,  as  were  probably  chaps,  i-ix.  This  first 
section  of  the  book,  he  thinks,  was  composed  by  the  last  editor  of 
the  book  as  a  kind  of  introduction  to  the  following  proverbs  of  Solo 
mon,  and  that  chap,  i,  1-6  was  written  as  a  preface  to  the  whole 
book,  especially  to  the  proverbs  of  Solomon  in  it.* 

But  we  can  see  no  good  reason  for  denying  to  Solomon  the  author 
ship  of  the  first  twenty-four  chapters  that  bear  his  name,  or  for  sup 
posing  that  the  proverbs  which  Hezekiah's  men  copied  out  (chaps. 
xxv-xxix)  as  Solomon's  were  not  all  his.  It  is  true,  that  if  Hezekiah's 
men  had  simply  written  down  the  proverbs  which  were  floating  among 
*De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  537.  'Einleitung,  p.  640. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  347 

the  people  as  Solomon's  there  would  be  ground  to  question  their  genu 
ineness.  But  the  statement  is,  "  These  are  also  proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  copied  out."  The 
Hebrew  word  rendered  " copied  out"  is  ipwrl,  they  transferred,  tran 
scribed,  from  one  book  into  another ;  Septuagint,  e|eypa^avT»>,  they 
copied. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Solomon  spoke  three  thousand  prov 
erbs  (i  Kings  iv,  32).  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  he 
wrote  them  down,  otherwise  such  a  large  number  of  proverbs  would 
not  have  had  definite  form;  and  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that  the 
number  would  have  been  known  if  they  had  not  been  written.  In 
stead  of  saying,  he  wrote  them,  it  is  said  he  spoke  ("13^)  them,  indi 
cating  that  Solomon  himself  was  their  author.  It  is  also  said  that 
Solomon  spoke  of  trees,  etc.,  where  we  must  understand  that  he  wrote 
of  them.  At  all  events,  the  language  in  Prov.  xxv,  i  shows  that  the 
men  of  Hezekiah  transferred  the  proverbs  in  chaps,  xxv-xxix  from 
a  larger  written  collection.  It  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  the 
first  nine  chapters  of  the  book  should  have  keen  written  by  the  col 
lector  of  the  proverbs,  or  editor,  instead  of  Solomon,  and  that  the 
name  of  this  Hebrew  monarch  should  be  placed  at  the  head  of  them 
when  the  collector  himself  in  that  case  wrote  about  one  third  of  the 
whole,  and  that,  too,  when  he  has  marked  so  carefully  the  source  of 
all  the  proverbs  in  the  collection,  attributing  one  chapter  to  Agur, 
and  another  to  King  Lemuel. 

The  second  division  of  the  book  begins  with  the  superscription, 
"  The  Proverbs  of  Solomon."  This  superscription  may  Thesecond  dl. 
seem  superfluous  when  the  fuller  one  was  already  stand-  vision  of  the 
ing  at  the  beginning  of  the  book.  But  it  is  most  likely  l 
that  the  superscription  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  second  division  as 
indicating  a  separate  collection  from  the  preceding,  as  many  psalms 
of  David,  standing  in  immediate  connexion,  have  each  a  superscrip 
tion.  The  proverbs  in  the  first  section  (chaps,  i-ix)  are  principally — 
in  a  poetical  point  of  view — synonymous,  while  those  in  the  second 
division  (chaps,  x-xxiv)  are  generally  antithetical.  The  last  part 
(chaps,  xxii,  ly-xxiv)  of  the  second  division  is  evidently  intended 
to  go  with  the  preceding,  as  belonging  to  Solomon ;  nor  should  the 
last  twelve  verses  be  excluded  from  it  as  being  the  product  of 
several  wise  men,  as  it  is  unsuitable  so  to  explain  chap,  xxiv,  23,  but 
rather,  according  to  the  English  version,  "  These  things  belong  to 
the  wise,"  i.  e.,  are  suitable  for  them.  The  preface  to  the  Proverbs 
(chap,  i,  2-6)  may  have  been  written  by  Solomon  himself. 

Ue  Wette  remarks  that  "  chapters  i-ix,  on  account  of  their  horta 
tory  tone  and  their  strict  doctrine  of  chastity,  are  more  suitable  for 


348  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

a  trainer  of  youth,  a  prophet,  or  priest,  than  for  a  king  like  Solomon.1 
Why  such  doctrines  are  unsuitable  to  a  man  of  Solomon's  wisdom 
and  virtues  simply  because  he  was  a  king  it  is  not  easy  to  see.  It 
was  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  that  he  was  led  astray  by  idolatrous 
women.  And  all  history  is  full  of  instances  in  which  preaching  anc 
practising  are  widely  at  variance. 

There  are  certain  peculiarities  of  language  that  characterize  all 
Peculiarities  in  the  proverbs  attributed  to  Solomon,  and  thus  confirm 

"^  !f^uage  their  unity  of  authorship  :  31?  -on,  lacking  heart  or  under- 
of  the  Solomon-  *  r  -  --: 

ic  Proverbs.  standing,  occurs  in  Prov.  vi,  32  ;  vii,  7  ;  ix,  4,  16  ;  x,  13,  21 ; 
xi,  12;  xii,  ii ;  xv,  21;  xvii,  18  ;  xxiv,  30.  This  phrase  is  found 
nowhere  else.  Similar  is  the  phrase  nfjon  "on,  to  lack  understanding, 
found  only  in  xxviii,  16.  The  phrase  npS  'yoin,  to  increase  learning, 
occurs  in  Prov.  i,  5  ;  ix,  9 ;  xvi,  21,  23  ;  but  nowhere  else.  jna,  in  the 
sense  to  reject,  is  found  only  in  Prov.  i,  25  ;  iv,  15  ;  viii,  33  ;  xiii,  18  ; 
xv,  32.  D'Jna  (plural  of  }ns),  strife,  is  found  only  in  xviii,  19; 
xxi,  9,  19;  xxiii,  29;  sxv,  24;  xxvi,  21;  xxvii,  15.  D'ri~>,  strife, 
xviii,  18;  xix,  13;  and  D'riD,  strife^  vi,  14,  19;  x,  12,  are  found  no 
where  else,  "mi  ^i,  continual  dropping,  found  only  in  xix,  13; 
xxvii,  15.  The  phrase  jn  t!nn,  to  devise  mischief,  is  found  only  in 
iii,  29  (run,  feminine);  vi,  14;  xii,  20;  xiv,  22.  There  are  other 
peculiarities  common  to  the  different  sections,  but  these  are  the 
most  important. 

The  thirtieth  chapter  is  attributed  to  Agur  and  the  thirty-first  to 
AjfurandLem-  King  Lemuel.  As  the  author  of  the  other  parts  of  the 
uei  uuknown.  book  is  a  real  personage,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing, 
with  some,  that  they  are  merely  symbolical  designations.  But  they 
are  persons  otherwise  unknown. 

In  almost  every  instance  in  the  book  the  divine  Being  is  called 
LORD  (Jehovah) ;  in  the  few  exceptions,  Elohim;  but  in  Agur's  prayer 
Eloah  is  once  used  (chap,  xxx,  5).  Keil  assigns  to  Solomon  chaps. 
i-xxix ;  Agur  he  regards  as  a  real  personage,  but  Lemuel  he  thinks 
is  a  symbolical  name.1 

Ancient  Jewish  tradition  *  assigned  the  collecting  of  all  the  prov 
erbs  that  bear  the  name  of  Solomon  into  our  book  to  the  men  of 
King  Hezekiah,  who  were  regarded  as  forming  a  literary  society  or 
college.  To  this  society  it  attributed  the  additions  chaps,  xxx,  xxxi. 
It  regarded  Agur  as  a  symbolical  name  of  a  wise  man  of  the  time  of 
Solomon,  the  embodiment  of  the  law  and  of  wisdom ;  and  Lemuel 
as  the  symbolic  name  of  King  Solomon. 

*  Introduction,  vol.  i,  pp.  472,  477.  *  Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  75-78. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  349 


CHAPTER   XLIV. 

THE    BOOK    OF    ECCLESIASTES. 


'THUS  book  (called  in  Hebrew  nSrlp,1  Koheleth  ;  Septuagint,  ' 

fi  ;  Vulgate,  Ecclesiastes,  a  preacher),  purporting  to  be  writ 


ten  by  the  son  of  David,  king  of  Jerusalem,  is  a  dissertation  upon 
the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  all  things  human,  and  recommends  the 
enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  life.  At  the  same  time  it  earnestly 
avows  the  importance  of  fearing  God  and  keeping  his  command 
ments.  The  language  is  for  the  most  part  poetical  and  aphoristic, 
resembling  in  style  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  but  sometimes  it  passes 
over  into  prose. 

The  author  opens  the  discussion  with  the  exclamation,  "  Vanity 
of  vanities,"  and  describes  the  ceaseless  changes  in  all  human  af 
fairs  (chap,  i,  i—  u),  and  then  describes  his  high  position,  and  the 
various  ways  in  which  he  sought  happiness  without  finding  it  (chap. 
i,  i2-ii).  He  asserts  that  for  everything  there  is  an  appointed  time, 
enjoins  the  doing  of  good,  and  the  enjoying  of  the  fruits  of  one's  la 
bour,  affirming  that  men  and  beasts  are  exposed  to  the  same  calam 
ities  (chap.  iii).  He  next  discusses  the  miseries  of  men,  the  advan 
tages  of  society,  with  a  few  remarks  on  other  matters  (chap.  iv). 
After  this  he  gives  religious  precepts,  and  discourses  on  the  vanity 
of  riches,  and  recommends  eating  and  drinking  and  enjoying  the 
fruit  of  one's  labour  (chap.  v).  Next  follow  various  remarks  on 
the  miseries  of  man,  in  which  is  cited  the  case  of  one  who  cannot 
enjoy  his  abundant  wealth  and  honour  (chap.  vi). 

In  the  following  chapter  (vii)  the  author  gives  utterance  to  prov 
erbs  and  moral  precepts,  inculcating  moderation,  and  calling  atten 
tion  to  the  fact  that  sometimes  the  righteous  man  perisheth  in  his 
righteousness,  while  the  wicked  man  prolongs  his  life  in  wickedness. 
In  chap,  viii  he  delivers  some  moral  precepts,  and  declares  that  he 
knows  that  "  it  shall  be  well  with  them  that  fear  God,"  but  "  it  shall 
tot  be  well  with  the  wicked."  At  the  same  time  he  asserts  that 
good  men  sometimes  meet  with  the  fate  of  bad  men,  and  wicked 
men  attain  what  is  due  good  men,  and  recommends  that  men  shall 
enjoy  the  good  things  of  this  life. 

1  fl  jrfp  (from  bnp,  to  convoke),  one  addressing  a  public  assembly  i  preache*.  The 
noun  is  masculine,  with  a  feminine  termination. 


8T>0  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

In  chap,  ix  he  again  reiterates  the  doctrine  that  things  come  alike 
to  all,  whatever  their  moral  character  may  be,  and  "that  time  and 
chance  happeneth  to  them  all."  In  chap,  x  he  delivers  various 
proverbs,  and  in  chap,  xi  precepts,  and  exhorts  the  young  man  to  en 
joy  himself  in  his  youth,  but  at  the  same  time  to  remember  that  for 
all  these  things  God  will  bring  him  into  judgment.  He  closes  the 
book  by  an  exhortation  to  remember  the  Creator  in  the  days  of  one's 
youth,  before  the  evil  days  come,  and  graphically  depicts  the  miseries 
of  old  age,  and  sums  up,  as  the  conclusion  of  all  that  he  has  said, 
"  Fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments;  for  this  is  the  whole  duty 
of  man.  For  God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with  every 
secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil."  Jerome  re 
marks  that  the  Hebrews  say  this  conclusion  of  Ecclesiastes  saved  it 
from  perishing  with  other  writings  of  Solomon,  a  fate  it  would  hav^ 
deserved  without  it.1 

THE  DESIGN  OF  THE  BOOK. 

It  is  clear  from  the  author's  conclusion  that  he  has  no  intention  to 
The  author  not  incu^cate  Atheism,  Epicureanism,  or  the  doctrines  after- 
an  Epicurean  wards  held  by  the  Sadducees.  In  his  discussion  thers 
is  but  little  system,  and  he  repeatedly  returns  to  the  doc 
trine  that  it  is  best  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  to  enjoy  the 
fruit  of  one's  labour,  and  that  all  is  vanity  in  this  world,  but  at  the 
same  time  asserting  man's  responsibility  to  God  for  his  actions. 

Schrader  gives  the  following  account  of  the  book :  It  "  evidently 
schrader's  ex-  transPorts  us  to  a  time  when  the  old  Hebrew  doctrine  of 
pianation  of  retribution,  the  old  faith,  in  general,  had  already  become 
a  subject  of  the  strongest  doubts,  and  when  men,  almost 
despairing  of  any  thing  higher,  believed  that  they  could  find  in  the 
enjoyment  of  earthly  things  the  satisfaction  they  sought,  and  the  in 
ternal  harmony  they  missed.  The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  unfolds  to  us 
the  picture  of  the  discord  in  the  soul  of  a  pious  man  of  this  period 
It  transports  us  into  the  very  midst  of  the  surging  conflict  of 
thoughts  fighting  each  other.  The  ancient  faith  appears  to  struggle 
with  modern  doubt  for  the  mastery.  But  at  last  we  see  the  former 
gain  the  victory  over  the  latter,  while  the  author  states  the  posi 
tion,  as  the  sum  of  his  discourse,  'Fear  God,  and  keep  his  com 
mandments.'"  The  only  exception  that  can  be  justly  made  to  the 
foregoing  statement  is,  that  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  skep 
ticism  respecting  the  doctrine  of  divine  providence  and  retribution 
had  become  common,  but,  rather,  that  it  was  a  growing  tendency 
which  developed  itself  afterwards  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees. 
1  Comment,  on  Ecclesiastes,  in  Jin.  "De  "Wette — Schrader,  p.  541 


THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  351 


DATE    AND    AUTHORSHIP. 

The  superscription  of  the  book  is,  "  The  Words  of  the  Preacher, 
the  son  of  David,  king  in  Jerusalem."  And  in  chap,  i,  12  the  au 
thor  says,  "  I,  the  Preacher,  was  king  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem."  Sol 
omon's  name  is  not  found  in  the  book  ;  it  might  be  supposed  that 
Solomon  is  not  necessarily  meant,  and  that  the  language  "  son  ot 
David  "  might  be  used  to  designate  any  of  his  descendants  who 
wag  king  in  Jerusalem.  But  the  statement  that  he  was  "  king  over 
Israel  in  Jerusalem,"  and  that  he  was  wiser  than  all  those  who  had 
preceded  him  in  Jerusalem  (chap,  i,  16),  suits  Solomon  only. 

But  here  the  question  arises,  Is  the  author's  title,  "  son  of  David, 
king  in  Jerusalem,"  a  real  or  assumed  one  ?  It  was  the  r^  b^  latet 


general  opinion  of  the  ancients  that  Solomon  was  really   in  its  composi- 

.~  .  ....  tion   than   the 

the   author  of  hcclesiastes.         As  in    antiquity,     says   time  of  soio- 

Fiirst,  "  a  comprehensive  wisdom  superior  to  that  of  mon* 
all  other  men  is  ascribed  to  Solomon  only,  it  was  natural  that  they 
should  refer  this  book  of  an  unknown  teacher  of  wisdom  to  Solo 
mon."  !  "  When,  at  a  later  period,  the  view  had  become  established 
that  Solomon  was  not  merely  an  assumed  name,  but  was  the  real  au 
thor  of  the  work,  the  tradition  was  fixed  that  the  college  of  Heze- 
kiah  edited  and  arranged  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  as  it  had  before 
the  Proverbs  and  Song  of  Solomon.  As  we  have  seen  in  the  case 
of  the  Proverbs  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  the  reference  here  can  be 
to  the  last  days  only  of  this  college,  in  the  latest  Persian  period,  be 
fore  the  founding  of  the  Great  Council  ;  and,  especially,  Ecclesiastes 
appears  to  be  the  last  book  edited."9 

The  book  was  treated  by  Jerome  as  the  work  of  Solomon,  and  this 
was  the  prevailing  opinion  in  the  Christian  Church  until  Believed  by  the 
Grotius  (f  1645)  rejected  it  as  a  writing  of  Solomon,  and 
referred  it  to  a  later  age  on  account  of  the  peculiarities  monian. 
of  its  language.  Modern  critics,  with  but  few  exceptions,  regard  it 
as  the  work  of  an  author  who  lived  after  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
Professor  Stuart  remarks  with  great  propriety  and  truth,  *'  The  dic 
tion  of  this  book  differs  so  widely  from  that  of  Solomon  in  the  Book 
of  Proverbs,  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  both  came  from  the 
same  pen.  Chaucer  does  not  differ  more  from  Pope  than  Ecclesi- 
iastes  from  Proverbs.  It  seems  to  me,  when  I  read  Coheleth,  that 
it  presents  one  of  those  cases  which  leave  no  room  for  doubt,  so 
striking  and  prominent  is  the  discrepancy."1  Hengstenberg  and 

IUeber  den  Kanon,  pp.  90,  91.     Furst  shows  that  there  was  a  slight  departure 
from  this  tradition,  p.  91. 
"Ibid.,  p.  91.  'On  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  p.  139. 


£53  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

Keil  refer  the  book  to  the  age  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra.  Ewald  re 
fers  it  to  the  last  part  of  the  Persian  dominion  ;  De  Wette  '  and  Bleek 
to  the  last  part  of  the  Persian,  or  to  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  pe 
riod  ;  while  Kamphausen  a  fixes  upon  the  third  century  before  Christ 
as  the  period  in  which  it  was  probably  written. 

We  think  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  it  is  the  latest  book 
of  the  Canon,  and  could  not  have  been  written  earlier  than  the  time 
of  the  prophet  Malachi  ;  but  in  all  probability  it  was  written  stilJ 
later.  This  is  especially  evident  from  the  language,  and  also  from 
the  tone  of  the  Book.  One  of  the  most  striking  peculiarities  of  the 
language  is  the  frequent  use  of  t?,  abbreviated  from  TCW,  who,  which. 
as  a  prefix  to  verbs.  This  usage  was  common  in  the  Phenician  lan 
guage  and  in  the  Rabbinical  Hebrew,  as  appears  from  the  Mishna 
(about  A.  D.  219"),  but  rarely  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament4  outside 
of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Solomon. 

Its  Chaldaisms  point  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  Babylonian 

^»   */»  vi'   6»  to  CeaSe>   xii»  3?    I 


Chaldalsms  In 

Ecclesiastes.      iii;  T  ;  wna,  sentence,  viii,  1  1  ;  nrio,  province,  ii,  8  ;  IBO,  to 


prosper,  x,  10;  xi,  6;  "WSJ,  explanation,  viii,  i;  uhv,  to  rule,  ii,  19; 
viii,  9  ;  p'oW,  ruling  over,  viii,  4,  8  ;  ^fj\  strong,  mighty,  vi,  10  ;  jp_F, 
to  be  made  straight,  i,  15  ;  13  3  1  long  ago,  formerly,  i,  10;  iii,  15.  Sev- 
eral  of  these  words  are  also  found  in  books  written  after  the  Baby 
lonian  captivity.  There  are  also  other  words  indicating  a  late  period. 

In  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  Jehovah  is  the  usual  name  for  the 
divine  Being  ;  this  word  never  occurs  in  Ecclesiastes,  but  instead 
thereof  Elohim,  which  is  used  forty  times.  It  would  seem  that  the 
name  Jehovah  had  at  the  time  cf  the  composition  of  the  book  already 
grown  into  disuse. 

The  age  of  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes  was  one  of  despondency,  not 
the  flourishing  period  in  which  Solomon  reigned.  It  is  not  at  all  prob 
able  that  Solomon  would  speak  of  the  oppression  under  the  sun,  in 
which  the  oppressed  had  no  comforter,  and  that  he  would  say  that 
on  the  side  of  the  oppressors  was  power  (chap,  iv,  i),  as  this  would 
have  been  a  reflection  upon  himself.  It  is  evident  that  when  the 
book  was  written  the  Jewish  temple  had  been  already  rebuilt,  for  the 
author  gives  advice  about  going  to  the  house  of  God  (chap,  v,  i). 

While  we  are  compelled  on  strong  internal  grounds  to  decide 

1  De  Wette—  Schrader,  p.  543. 
Kamphausen's  Bleek,  p.  648. 

•  At  thiu  time  it  received  its  present  form,  but  it  doubtless  presents  the  state  of  the 
Hebrew  at  an  earlier  period. 

4  It  occurs  several  times  in  Psalm  cxxxvii,  8,  9,  written  after  the  captivity. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  353 

against  Solomon's  being  the  author  of  the  work,  there  is  no  one  to 
whom  we  can  with  any  probability  ascribe  it.  Professor  Douglas,  in 
his  additions  to  Keil's  Introduction,  makes  a  vigorous,  but  yet,  we 
think,  unsuccessful  effort  to  show  that  the  book  proceeded  from 
Solomon. 


CHAPTER  XLV. 

THE    SONG    OF    SOLOMON. 

Hebrew  title  of  this  book  is  Song1  of  the  Songs,  which  is  Sol- 
omons  (rin^"1?  n»x  ^T^]  T^)>  in  which  its  authorship  is  cleany 
ascribed  to  Solomon  and  the  phrase  "  Song  of  Songs  "  means  the 
most  beautiful  of  songs,  i.  e.,  the  choicest  of  the  songs,  of  Solomon. 

The  book  consists  of  eight  chapters,  in  which  the  deepest  affections 
of  two  persons  of  opposite  sex  are  set  forth  in  the  strongest,  most 
beautiful,  and  often  touching  language,  in  the  form  of  dialogues, 
often  accompanied  with  an  exquisitely  beautiful  description  of  the 
scenery  in  country  life. 

The  book  opens  with  a  strong  expression  of  love  on  the  part  of  a 
female  for  a  shepherd,  to  which  he  replies  in  affectionate,  laudatory 
language.  She  answers  in  endearing  words,  to  which  he  again  replies 
in  terms  of  praise  and  appreciation.  She  then  speaks  of  her  own  pre 
eminence  and  that  of  her  lover,  and  he  makes  his  address  to  her,  to 
which  she  responds  (chaps,  i,  ii).  In  the  following  chapter  (chap,  iii) 
she  relates  her  search  for  her  beloved,  and  the  finding  of  him,  after 
which  she  describes  him,  and  compares  him  to  Solomon  in  his  glory. 
Her  lover  then  answers  (chap,  iv),  giving  an  exquisitely  beautiful 
description  of  his  beloved,  to  which  she  makes  a  brief  response.  In 
his  dissatisfaction  he  seeks  his  beloved  in  the  night,  but  before  she 
opens  to  him  he  withdraws,  and  while  she  is  in  pursuit  of  him  the 
watchmen  smite  her.  She  gives  a  beautiful  description  of  his  per 
son  (chap  v).  In  the  following  chapter  a  third  person  is  introduced, 
asking  her  where  her  beloved  is  gone,  to  whom  she  replies.  After 
this  he  gives  a  beautiful  description  of  his  beloved,  in  which  she  is 
called  a  Shulamite,  and  prince's  daughter.  In  replying  to  this,  she 
invites  him  to  take  a  walk  with  her  into  the  fields  (chaps,  vi,  vii). 
She  expresses  her  deep  affection  for  the  object  of  her  love.  After 
this  she  speaks  of  a  little  sister  that  hath  no  breasts,  and  refers  to 
Solomon's  vineyard  at  Baal-hamon,  and  to  her  own  vineyard,  and 
closes  by  exhorting  her  beloved  to  make  haste  (chap.  viii). 

1  Septuagint,  'Ao/za  'Ao^arwv  /  Vulgate,  Canticum   Canticorum* 
VOL.  I.— 23 


354  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Delitzsch  regards  the  whole  book  as  referring  to  the  ardent  affec- 

Deiitzsch'san-  ^on  °^  two  *overs  ^or  eac^  otner>  beginning  with  their 
»iysis  of  this  first  love,  and  extending  to  a  period  beyond  their  nup 
tials.  He  divides  the  whole  into  six  acts,  and  each  of 
these  again  into  two  scenes  :  first,  the  mutual  ardour  of  the  lovers 
(chaps,  i,  2-ii,  7)  ;  secondly,  their  seeking  and  finding  each  other 
(chaps,  ii,  8-iii,  5) ;  thirdly,  the  introduction  of  the  bride,  and  the 
wedding  (chaps,  iii,  9~v,  i)  ;  fourthly,  the  love  that  was  spurned, 
but  again  won  (chaps,  v,  2-vi,  9) ;  fifthly,  how  the  charmingly  beau- 
tiful  Shulamite,  even  as  princess,  preserves  her  simplicity  and  humil 
ity  (chaps,  vi,  lo-viii,  4) ;  sixthly,  the  visit  of  Solomon  and  of  the 
Shulamite  to  the  house  of  the  latter,  and  the  confirmation  of  their  al 
liance  of  love  (chap,  viii,  5-14).  "  This  view,"  says  Bleek,  "  presents 
many  difficulties  and  improbabilities."  l  Schrader  divides  the  book, 
in  a  somewhat  different  way,  into  five  acts,  in  which  he  represents 
the  Shulamite  as  being  in  love  with  a  shepherd,  and  Solomon  ap 
pearing  as  his  rival,  but  without  gaining  her  affections.8  But  this 
seems  inadmissible,  and  it  is  better  to  regard  the  book  as  exhibiting 
the  love  of  but  two  persons  for  each  other. 

DESIGN   OF   THE   AUTHOR. 

Respecting  the  design  of  the  author,  the  most  discordant  views 
views  of  the  have  been  held.  "  The  men  of  the  Great  Council,"  says 
8o?ffU?y  dTs!  Fttrst,  "  and  those  who  lived  later  in  the  Greek  period, 
cordant.  explained  the  Song  of  Solomon  in  a  symbolical  or  alle 

gorical  manner,  and  thus  it  was  saved  for  the  Canon."5  "  In  the 
Midrash  on  the  Song  of  Solomon  it  is  said,  on  the  passage  *  Thy 
cheeks  are  comely  with  rows  of  pearls,  thy  neck  with  strings  of  pearls ; 
we  will  make  for  thee  golden  chains  with  studs  of  silver  :  '  '  The  rows 
of  pearls  are  the  five  books  of  the  Law ;  the  strings  of  pearls  are  the 
Prophets ;  the  golden  chains  are  the  Hagiographa ;  and  the  silver 
studs  are  the  cantos  of  the  Song  of  Solomon.'  The  song  is  also  des 
ignated  as  the  mystical,  the  excellent  scroll."*' 

The  Targum  on  this  book,  and  many  of  the  Jewish  expositors, 
supposed  by  explain  the  song  as  setting  forth  in  an  allegorical  way 
some  ancient  the  relation  existing  between  God  and  the  Hebrew 

and      modern  ,  .   , 

critics  to  be  ai-  people,  in  which  the  Shulamite  maiden  represents  the 
legoricai.  people  of  Israel,  while  her  lover  typifies  Jehovah.  Ori- 
gen,  in  his  Commentary  on  this  book,  remarks:  "Understand  that 
the  bridegroom  is  Christ,  and  that  the  bride  is  the  Church,  without 
spot  or  wrinkle."  In  this  method  of  exposition  he  is  followed 

1  Einleitung,  p.  645.  aDe  Wette — Schrader,  p.  558. 

*  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  84.  *  Ibid.,  p.  85. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  855 

by  most  of  the  ancient  Christian  expositors,  and  by  many  of  the 
moderns. 

Respecting  the  symbolizing  of  the  union  of  the  soul  with  God  by 
means  of  the  love  existing  between  two  persons  of  dif-  SQQJQ  rea8oni 

ferent  sexes,  Professor  Stuart  remarks,  "that  extensive  in  oriental  u»- 

...  .      ageforanaUe- 

usage  of  a  similar  nature  exists,  and  has  for  a  long  pen-  goricai   inter- 

od  existed,  in  the  Oriental  countries,  e.  g.,  among  the  Pretatlon- 
Persians,  the  Turks,  the  Arabians,  and  the  Hindoos.  In  the  Musnavi 
of  Jellaleddin,  the  poems  of  Jami,  and  above  all  in  the  Odes  of  Ha- 
fiz  are  many  productions  apparently  of  an  amatory  nature,  which 
the  Persians  (there  are  some  dissenters)  regard  as  expressive  of  the 
intercourse  of  the  soul  with  God."1 

Lane,  in  his  Modern  Egyptians,  gives  some  specimens  of  songs 
sung  by  the  dervishes  of  Egypt  upon  the  festival  of  the  birth  of 
Mohammed  which  have  considerable  resemblance  to  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  and  are  evidently  intended  to  be  of  a  highly  devotional 
character,  however  different  they  may  seem  to  be  from  our  taste  and 
sense  of  propriety.  "  I  cannot  entertain  any  doubt,"  says  he,  "  as  to 
the  design  of  Solomon's  Song."3 

According  to  Keil  *  the  Song  "  depicts  in  dramatico-lyrical  re- 
.sponsive  songs,  under  the  allegory  of  the  bridal  love  of  Solomon  and 
Shulamith,  the  loving  communion  between  the  Lord  and  his  Church, 
according  to  its  ideal  nature,  as  it  results  from  the  choice  of  Israel 
to  be  the  Church  of  the  Lord.  According  to  this,  every  disturbance 
of  that  fellowship,  springing  out  of  Israel's  infidelity,  leads  to  an 
ever  firmer  establishment  of  the  covenant  of  love  by  means  of  Is 
rael's  return  to  the  true  covenant  of  God,  and  this  God's  unchange 
able  love." 

Delitzsch  rejects  the  allegorical  character  of  the  Song,  and  en 
deavours  to  explain  it  with  a  reference  to  the  history  of  Critics  who 
the  time.  "Without  Solomon's  conscious  aim,  by  the  gori^i^ta^ 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  it  has  taken  such  a  form  that  pretation. 
the  mystery  of  marriage  sheds  its  rays  upon  us  out  of  its  ethereal 
love,  its  crystal  mirror."  Bleek  also  denies  the  allegorical  mean 
ing,  and  sees  in  the  book  nothing  more  than  the  expression  of  love 
of  persons  of  different  sexes  for  each  other ; 4  and  Schrader  holds 
that  it  sets  forth  the  glorification  of  true  bridal  love,  exhibiting  its 
real  character  in  every  trial ;  and,  inasmuch  as  this  tendency  springs 
from  the  spirit  of  the  purest  morality,  it  justly  entitles  the  book  to  a 
place  in  the  canon  without  resorting  to  the  allegorical  exposition, 
which  he  thinks  is  devoid  of  all  probability.5 

1  On  the  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  970.         "See  his  specimens  in  vol.  ii,  pp.  195-197. 
'  Introd.,  vol.  i,  pp.  503,  504.          Einl.,  p.  643.          •  De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  559. 


356  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

It  seems  exceedingly  improbable  that  the  book  would  have  been 
admitted  into  the  canon  if  it  had  not  been  deemed  to  be  of  an  alle 
gorical  character,  setting  forth  the  intimate  relation  existing  between 
Jehovah  and  his  chosen  people  ;  for  it  is  in  no  sense  historical,  di 
dactic,  or  prophetic.  A  poem,  however  beautiful  it  may  be,  if  it 
aims  at  nothing  higher  than  to  set  forth  the  mutual  love  of  two  per 
sons  of  different  sex,  has  no  place  in  the  canon.  In  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  the  intimate  relation  existing  between  Jehovah  and  Israel  is 
typified  by  the  relation  existing  between  husband  and  wife.  But  it 
is  true  that  the  Song  itself  furnishes  no  key  to  its  solution,  and  the 
spiritual  sense  nowhere  crops  out. 

THE  AUTHOR   OF  THE  SONG. 

Schrader,  while  he  denies  that  the  poem  was  written  by  Solomon, 
Opinions  of  grants  that  in  its  original  form  it  was  composed  perhaps 
modern  critics.  jn  the  ient^  century  before  Christ,  but  was  afterwards  en 
riched  by  additions.  He  is  inclined  to  think  that  it  had  its  origin 
in  the  northern  part  of  Palestine.1 

Bleek  remarks,  that  "  it  may  be  supposed,  with  great  probability, 
that  the  book  has  one  author,  to  which  supposition  the  similarity  of 
character,  representation,  and  language  pervading  the  whole  of  it,» 
and  the  recurrence  of  so  many  individual  references,  lead.  Single 
passages  clearly  refer  to  Solomon  and  to  his  affairs  in  such  a  way 
that  it  scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt  that  they  were  written  in  the  age 
and  in  the  neighbourhood  of  this  monarch.  But  these  very  passages 
also  make  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  not  Solomon  him 
self  is  the  author,  but  another  poet,  in  the  time  and  in  the  neigh 
bourhood  of  Solomon."8  Davidson  supposes,  that  although  not  writ 
ten  by  Solomon,  it  appeared  soon  after  his  death.8 

Keil  remarks,  that  the  statement  of  the  superscription,  that  Solo 
mon  was  the  author  of  the  book,  "  is  thoroughly  confirmed  by  the 
predominant  circle  of  imagery  in  the  poem,  and  by  its  references  to 
matters  of  fact  as  well  as  by  its  language.  The  multitude  of  names 
of  plants  and  animals  which  occur  in  it — nuts,  aloes,  cedar,  cypress 
vine,  mandrakes,  rose,  camphire,  frankincense,  myrrh,  spikenard, 
cinnamon,  lily;  and,  again,  hinds  of  the  field,  lions,  kids,  doves, 
leopards,  mare,  she-goats,  young  roes,  gazelles,  ewes,  foxes,  turtle; 
as  well  as  of  other  natural  objects  and  products  (ivory,  marble, 
sapphires,  etc.),  favour  the  belief  that  he  was  King  Solomon,  re 
nowned  equally  as  a  prolific  composer  of  songs,  and  as  an  eminent 
naturalist  (i  Kings  iv,  32,  33). "4 

1  De  Wette — Schrader,  pp.  560,  561.  *  Einleitung,  pp.  644,  645. 

*  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p.  414.  4Vol.  i,  pp.  501,  502. 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  357 

The  ancient  tradition  *  of  the  Jews  attributed  the  Song  to  Solo 
mon,  and  this  has  been  the  prevalent  opinion,  and  there  is  no  good 
reason  for  denying  that  he  was  the  author.  It  certainly  was  written 
in  the  age  of  Solomon,  to  which  there  are  the  most  evident  allusions 
(thai*,  i,  5;  iii,  7-11;  viii,  u,  12). 

Respecting  the  language  of  the  book,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it 
ha»  some  affinities  with  the  Book  of  Proverbs;  but  at 
the  same  time  it  has  in  many  places  the  shortened  form, 
V,  V,  from  -WN,  characteristic  of  late  Hebrew,  but  which  was  also 
used  sometimes  at  an  earlier  period,  as  we  find  it  twice  in  the  Song 
of  Deborah  (Judges  v,  7).  D^2,flar&,  occurs  in  iv,  13  ;  but  this  word 
is  also  found  in  the  Sanscrit,  and  furnishes  no  probable  proof  of  the 
late  origin  of  the  book. 

ITS   CANONICITY. 

Some  of  the  ancient  Jews  attributed  a  very  high  value  to  this 
Song.  Rabbi  Akibah  remarked,  "  Far  be  it  from  us  to  Found  ^  me 
suppose  that  any  one  in  Israel  ever  doubted  the  holi-  canon  at  an 
ness  of  the  Song,  for  the  world  was  not  worthy  of  the  early  date* 
day  on  which  the  Song  was  given  to  Israel.  Although  all  the  Hagi- 
ographa  are  holy,  this  Song  is  most  holy."'  In  the  Targum  on  this 
Song  it  is  stated  that  Solomon  uttered  it  under  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  book  is  found  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures  ol 
the  Old  Testament  as  given  by  Melito,'  bishop  of  Sardis,  in  the  lat 
ter  part  of  the  second  century,  and  also  in  the  catalogues  of  the 
early  Church.  Origen  and  Jerome,  however,  following  an  old  tra 
dition  of  the  Jews,  did  not  think  the  book  should  be  read  before  one 
is  thirty  years  of  age.4 

1  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  86. 

*  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  83.    Akibah  lived  in  tht  first  pay*  'A  the  second 
century. 

"In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  iv,  26. 
1  Furst ,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  83. 


358  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 


'T^ 
••• 


CHAPTER  XLVI. 

THE    LAMENTATIONS   OF   JEREMIAH. 

small  poetical  book,  containing  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  the 
simple  inscription  ro\x,  (Howl)  —  so  called  because  the  book 
begins  with  this  word  —  stands  in  the  English  version  of  the  Bible, 
in  the  Peshito-Syriac,  and  in  the  Vulgate,  immediately  after  the 
Prophet  Jeremiah,  from  which  it  is  separated  in  the  Septuagint  by 
the  Book  of  Baruch  ;  but  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  it  stands  in  the  Hagi- 
ographa  just  before  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes.  We  introduce  it  here 
on  account  of  its  poetical  character.  In  the  Septuagint  it  bears  the 
title,  "  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah  "  (Gp^vot  lepe/i/ov),  and  has  the  fol 
lowing  prefatory  remarks:  "And  it  came  to  pass,  after  Israel  had 
been  led  away  into  captivity,  and  Jerusalem  had  been  made  desolate, 
that  Jeremiah  sat  weeping,  and  sung  this  dirge  over  Jerusalem,  and 
said."  In  the  Peshito-Syriac  it  has  the  inscription,  "  Lamentation  of 
Jeremiah  ;"  in  the  Vulgate,  "THRENI,  that  is,  THE  LAMENTATIONS  OF 
THE  PROPHET  JEREMIAH."  It  is  called  by  Jerome  "CINOTH"  (nirg), 
Lamentations. 

It  consists  of  five  chapters.  In  the  first  the  author  pours  forth,  in 
language  deeply  pathetic,  his  sorrow  for  the  desolations  and  miseries 
of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  on  account  of  their  sins.  This  mournful  strain 
he  continues  in  the  next  chapter,  in  which  he  laments  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  ;  and  in  the  third  he  describes,  in  deeply  touching  terms, 
his  own  sufferings  and  sorrows,  and  at  the  same  time  expresses  hope 
and  confidence  in  God.  After  this  he  reverts  to  the  calamities  that 
have  overtaken  Jerusalem,  and  prays  for  a  restoration  to  the  Divine 
favour  (chaps,  iv,  v).  Although  no  mention  is  made  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar  s  having  brought  these  calamities  upon  the  land  and  the  city, 
yet  the  notices  of  the  Egyptians  and  Assyrians,  to  whom  the  Jews 
have  submitted  (chapter  v,  6),  and  the  nature  of  the  calamities, 
leave  no  doubt  that  the  dreadful  catastrophe  was  brought  upon  them 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  when  he  destroyed  the  city  and  the  temple,  and 
led  the  people  away  captive  to  Babylon. 

The  arrangement  of  the  verses  in  the  first  four  chapters  is  highly 

The  versiflca-  arlificial.     The  first  two  chapters  contain  each  twenty- 

Won  highly  ar-  two  verses  of  about  two  lines  each.     The  first  of  these 

verses  in  each  of  the  two  chapters  begins  with  N  (Aleph), 

the  first  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  ;  the  second  with  3  (Beth)  ;  and 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  359 

the  other  successive  verses  with  the  successive  letters  of  the  alpha 
bet,  ending  with  fl  (Tav).  The  third  consists  of  sixty-six  verses,  aver 
aging  each  about  two  thirds  of  a  line  in  length.  The  first,  second, 
and  third  verses  begin  severally  with  x  (Aleph),  the  next  three  each 
with  3  (Beth),  and  so  on  to  the  last  three,  which  begin  with  F\  (Tav). 
The  fourth  chapter  contains  twenty-two  verses,  each  something  more 
than  a  line  long,  beginning  with  the  successive  letters  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet.  The  fifth  chapter  contains  twenty-two  verses,  arranged 
without  any  reference  to  the  order  of  the  letters  in  the  alphabet. 

THE   AUTHOR   OF    LAMENTATIONS. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Septuagint  attributes  the  book  to 
Jeremiah ;  so  does  the  Vulgate  in  nearly  the  same  Ian-  The  book  as- 
guage.  The  most  ancient  Jewish  tradition1  ascribes  it  StS*  byj8|[al 
to  the  Prophet  Jeremiah,  and  this  has  been  the  almost  cient  tradition, 
unanimous  opinion.  In  confirmation  of  the  ancient  tradition  De 
Wette  remarks,  that  "  we  can  appeal  to  its  affinity  in  contents, 
spirit,  tone,  and  language  "  with  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah.  With 
this  judgment  Bleek  coincides.8  Schrader "  thinks  it  very  improbable, 
if  not  impossible,  that  Jeremiah  should  have  written  it,  alleging  that 
its  author  made  use  of  Ezekiel  (which  statement  admits  of  no  proof), 
and  that  chap,  v,  7  contradicts  Jer.  xxxi,  29,  30,  which  is  not  true. 
He  supposes  the  book  was  written  during  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
Josephus  evidently  refers  to  this  book  when,  speaking  of  the  death 
of  King  Josiah,  he  observes :  "  Jeremiah,  the  prophet,  wrote  upon 
him  a  funereal  dirge,  which  is  still  extant."4  But  he  is  mistaken  in 
supposing  that  it  was  composed  on  the  death  of  that  monarch, 
though  it  is  stated  in  2  Chronicles  xxxv,  25  that  Jeremiah  lamented 
Josiah. 

The  book  has  a  freshness  and  vividness  clearly  showing  that  it 
must  have  been  written  soon  after  the  events  of  which  it  treats. 
Bleek  thinks  it  was  composed  before  the  final  catastrophe,  in  the  in 
terval  between  the  surrender  of  the  city  and  its  destruction,  while 
Jeremiah  was  still  in  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxxix,  14).  On  this  point, 
however,  we  are  not  certain. 

*  Ftirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  87.  *  Einleitung,  p.  503. 

•De  Wette-  Schrader,  pp.  531,  532.  'Antiq.,  x,  5,  I. 


860  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 


CHAPTER  XLVII. 

THE     PROPHETIC     BOOKS. 
HEBREW   PROPHECY. 

YTTHEN  Moses  warned  the  children  of  Israel  against  false  proph 
ets  and  deceivers,  he  promised  them,  '*  The  Lord  thy  God 
will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  Prophet  («'3J)  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of 
thy  brethren,  like  unto  me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken"  (Deut. 
xviii,  15).  This  promise,  although  it  has  its  highest  fulfillment  in 
useoftheterm  Jesus  Christ,1  the  greatest  of  all  prophets,  yet  furnishes 
prophet.  j-he  basis  of  the  prophetic  office  among  the  Hebrews. 

In  Judges  vi,  8,  it  is  said  "  that  the  Lord  sent  a  prophet  unto  the 
children  of  Israel  " — the  only  mention  of  a  prophet  in  this  book. 
The  next  use  of  the  term  prophet  occurs  in  i  Sam.  iii,  20,  where  it 
is  said  that  all  Israel  "  knew  that  Samuel  was  established  to  be  a 
prophet  of  the  Lord."  Mention  is  made  of  "  a  company  of  prophets  " 
in  the  time  of  Samuel  (i  Sam.  x,  10).  In  the  time  of  David  we  read  of 
"  Nathan  the  prophet,"  "  Gad  the  seer,"  and  "  Heman  the  seer."  These 
appellations  are  used  indiscriminately  (i  Sam.  ix,  9).  In  the  time 
of  Jeroboam  we  find  "  Ahijah  the  prophet "  (i  Kings  xiv,  2),  "  Iddo 
the  seer,"  (2  Chron.  ix,  29),  and  "  Shemaiah  the  prophet "  (chaps, 
xi,  2 ;  xii,  15).  Elijah,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  flourished  during  the  reign  of  the  wicked  Ahab.  He  was 
succeeded  in  the  prophetic  office  by  his  disciple  Elisha,  almost  as 
celebrated  as  his  master.  The  ministry  of  these  two  prophets  ex 
tended  from  about  B.  C.  910  to  B.  C.  838.  During  their  time  refer 
ence  is  made  to  "  the  sons  of  the  prophets  "  (i  Kings  xx,  35  ;  2  Kings 
"»  3>  5>  7,  15;  iv»  J»  38;  v»  22;  vi>  iJ  ix>  Oi  that  is»  "the  disciples 
Tbe  prophetic  of  the  prophets,"  who  appear  to  have  established  schools 
schools.  for  ^g  training  of  young  men  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and 

if  called  of  God  to  the  extraordinary  prophetic  office,  that  they  might 
be  suitable  instruments  in  the  hands  of  Providence  for  the  execution 
of  their  great  mission.  Among  these  prophets,  Samuel,  Nathan,  Gad 
(i  Chron.  xxix,  29),  Shemaiah,  Iddo  (2  Chron.  xii,  15),  and  Ahijah 
(2  Chron.  ix,  29),  were  writers.  None  of  their  works,  however,  arc 
extant,  unless  we  except  the  Books  of  Samuel,  which,  in  all  prob 
ability,  were,  in  their  present  form,  composed  by  Nathan.  Of 

*Acts  Hi,  22. 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  361 

their  prophecies  we  have  but  fragments  in  some  of  the  hu.orical 
books.  It  is  very  probable  that  their  prophecies  were  of  a  local  and 
fragmentary  character. 

The  most  brilliant  period  of  Hebrew  prophecy  extended  from  about 
B.  C.  880  to  B.  C.  433,  daring  which  flourished,  in  order  of  time,1 
Jonah,  Obadiah,  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Micah,  Nahum,  Zeph- 
aniah,  Habakkuk,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Zechariah,  Haggai,  and 
Malichi.  We  have  extant  writings  from  all  of  them  with  the  prob 
able  exception  of  Jonah.'  It  was  during  this  period  that  the  He 
brews  came  in  contact  with  foreign*  nations,  and  their  prophets,  un 
der  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  often  take  a  wider  range  and  a 
loftier  flight,  and  predict  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdoms  hostile  to 
Israel,  the  judgments  or  blessings  of  God  upon  his  chosen  people, 
and  the  glory  of  Messiah's  reign. 

The  Hebrew  prophets  were  distinguished  by  the  purity  of  their 
lives,  self-denial,  and  zeal  for  Jehovah,  which  often  Cnaracterlgtlci 
brought  upon  them  the  wrath  and  vengeance  of  wicked  of  the  Hebrew 
and  idolatrous  kings.  As  a  class,  they  had  no  parallel  prophets- 
in  other  nations.  They  did  not  belong  to  any  particular  tribe  or 
family,  but  were  selected  by  the  Almighty  himself  as  messengers, 
to  whom  he  communicated  his  will  and  purpose,  principally  in 
visions.  We  sometimes  find  the  prophets  performing  symbolic  acts,  to 
impress  more  deeply  upon  the  people  their  prophecies.  Thus  Ahijah, 
in  declaring  unto  Jeroboam  that  he  should  have  ten  tribes  of  Israel, 
"  caught  the  new  garment  that  was  on  him,  and  rent  it  in  twelve 
pieces :  and  he  said  to  Jeroboam,  Take  thee  ten  pieces  :  for  thus 
saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  Behold,  I  will  rend  the  kingdom  out 
of  the  hand  of  Solomon,  and  will  give  ten  tribes  to  thee  "  (i  Kings 

xi,  30.  3i). 

Isaiah,  by  way  of  illustrating  his  prophecy,  was  directed  to  call  his 
son  "  Maher-shalal-hash-baz,"  hasting  to  the  prey \  speeding  symbolism  oi 
to  the  booty  (chap,  viii,  i)  ;  and,  to  set  forth  God's  judg-   the Pr°Phets- 
ment  upon  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  he  was  commanded  to  walk  naked 
and  barefoot,  which  he  did  for  three  years  (chap,  xx,  2-4). 

Jeremiah  was  sent  to  the  Euphrates  to  hide  a  girdle  in  the  hole 
of  a  rock,  and  long  afterward  he  was  ordered  to  get  it  again ;  and, 
having  found  it  marred,  it  was  made  to  represent  the  worthless  con 
dition  of  Israel  (chap,  xiii,  i-n). 

For  a  sign  to  Israel  Ezekiel  was  ordered  to  portray,  by  symbols, 
the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  lie  upon  his  left  side  three  hundred 
and  ninety  days,  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Israel ;  also  to 
1  Some  of  them,  however,  were  contemporary. 
*  We  do  not  regard  Jonah  as  the  author  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name. 


362  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

lie  upon  his  right  side  forty  days,  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house 
of  Judah  (chap,  iv,  1-8). 

To  illustrate  the  treachery  of  Israel  Hosea  was  thus  commanded: 
"  Go,  take  unto  thee  a  wife  of  whoredoms  and  children  of  whoredoms : 
for  the  land  hath  committed  great  whoredom,  departing  from  the 
Lord  "  (chap,  i,  2).  Again  :  "  Go  yet,  love  a  woman  beloved  of  her 
friend,  yet  an  adulteress,  according  to  the  love  of  the  Lord  toward 
the  children  of  Israel,"  etc.  (chap,  iii,  i). 

The  question  here  arises,  Were  these  symbolic  actions  really  per 
formed,  or  were  they  merely  visions?  In  some  instances  they  were, 
doubtless,  real  transactions,  performed  before  the  eyes  of  the  peo 
ple;  in  others,  most  probably,  they  were  visions.  According  to 
Bleek,1  Kimchi,  Aben  Ezra,  and  Moses  Maimonides,  distinguished 
rabbies,  regarded  the  symbolical  acts  of  the  prophets  as  mere  visions. 

Respecting  the  character  of  the  Hebrew  prophecy,  various  opin 
ions  have  been  held.  The  first  view  is  that  of  Eichhorn,  who 
regarded  nearly  all  the  declarations  in  our  prophetic  writings  which 
refer  to  events  in  the  immediate  future  as  poetical  descriptions  of 
events  written  after  they  had  occurred.  The  absurdity  of  this  view, 
Bleek  2  remarks,  is  universally  acknowledged,  and  needs  no  refuta 
tion.  The  second  view  is,  that  the  prophecies  are  the  products  of 
views  of  the  ^ie  nurnan  wisdom,  experience,  and  judgment  of  the 
character  of  the  prophets  respecting  human  affairs — the  prediction  of  the 
future  from  the  past  and  present.  The  third  view  is, 
that  the  prophecies  are  merely  the  purely  human  hopes  and  fears 
of  the  prophets,  which  they  uttered  when  guided  by  patriotism 
and  poetic  imagination,  without  troubling  themselves  whether  or  not 
they  would  be  fulfilled. 

These  last  two  views  are  prevalent  among  rationalistic  critics,  and 
are  utterly  at  variance  with  the  declarations  of  the  prophets  them 
selves,  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  wonderful 
fulfilment  of  their  prophecies,  which  confirm  the  evangelical  view 
expressed  in  the  language  of  Peter :  "  The  prophecy  came  not  in 
old  time  by  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost "  (2  Peter  i,  21). 

Bleek,  while  not  adopting  the  last  two  rationalistic  views,  thinks 

they  have  a  measure  of  truth,  but  not  the  whole  truth,  and  that  it 

would  be  utterly  false  to  consider  the  discourses  of  the  prophets 

respecting  the  future  as  the  product  of  the  reflective  understanding. 

"  Among  the  prophecies,"  s'ays  he,  **  which  are  preserved,  there  are 

many  respecting  the  genuineness  of  which   there  can 

be  no  doubt,  in  which  single  future  events  are  predicted 

1Einleitung,  p.  427.  "Ibid.,  p.  431. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  363 

with  great  confidence  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  clearly  seen  that  in 
the  mind  of  the  prophet  no  doubt  existed  respecting  the  certain 
and  exact  fulfilment  of  his  prediction,  and  that  a  higher  confidence 
directed  him  than  any  human  insight  and  previous  calculation  could 
have  instilled  into  him."  ' 

It  has  sometimes  been  objected  that  some  of  the  prophecies  have 
not  been  fulfilled.  This  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  true ;  for  there  are 
prophecies  respecting  the  universality  of  Christ's  kingdom  and  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews  to  Christianity  that  have  not  yet  been  ful 
filled  :  but  their  accomplishment  lies  in  the  future,  the  fulness  of 
time  having  not  yet  come.  It  is  also  true  that  there  are  some 
prophecies,  whose  fulfilment  pertains  to  the  past,  which  we  cannot 
prove  to  have  been  fulfilled,  owing  to  our  imperfect  knowledge  of 
history. 

But,  further :  it  sometimes  happens  that  a  prophecy  depends  for 
its  fulfilment  upon  the  conduct  of  the  persons  whose  prosperity 
or  punishment  is  declared  beforehand.  Thus  we  find  that  God 
announced  the  severe  judgments  that  he  would  bring  upon  Ahab  for 
his  wickedness;  but  Ahab,  hearing  them,  repented  in  sackcloth; 
upon  which  God  said,  "  Seest  thou  how  Ahab  humbleth  himself 
before  me  ?  because  he  humbleth  himself  before  me  I  will  not  bring 
the  evil  in  his  days  :  but  in  his  sons'  days,"  etc.  (i  Kings  xxi, 
21-29).'  The  most  of  the  prophecies,  however,  are  of  an  absolute 
character;  all  the  contingencies  are  foreseen,  and  the  divine  pur 
pose  is  declared  without  conditions  and  limitations.  Of  such  a 
character  is  the  prophecy  respecting  the  destruction  of  Babylon 
(Isa.  xiii,  19-22). 

From  the  great  number  of  prophecies  which  have  been  accurately 
fulfilled  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  is  established,  c^ci^on  M 
and  we  are  authorized  in  concluding  that  all  those  to  fulfilment  of 
prophecies  still  unfulfilled  will  receive  their  accomplish-  prophecy> 
ment  in  the  future ;  and  that  those  which  pertain  to  the  past  were 
fulfilled,  even  in  cashes  where  the  incompleteness  of  history  renders 
us  incapable  of  proving  it. 

The  language  of  the  prophets  is  often  of  a  sublime  character,  full 
of  bold  imagery,  and  clothed  in  a  poetic  form,  and  is  occasionally 
obscure  from  its  great  condensation  and  abruptness. 

1  Einleitung,  p.  435. 

'So  of  Nineveh  :  "Yet  forty  days,  and  Nineveh  shall  be  overthrown  ;"  but  the 
people  repented,  and  the  city  was  saved. 


364 


INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 


A   CHRONOLOGICAL   TABLE   OF   THE   HEBREW   PROPHETS. 
Obadiah  prophesied  in  Judah About  B.  C.  880 


in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  at  Nineveh 
chiefly  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel 

in  Judah 


Joel 
Jonah 
Amos         •• 
Ilosea 
Isaiah 

Micah        "        "      

Nahum  lived  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  and  prophesied  againet 

Nineveh 

Zephaniah  prophesied  in  Judah 

Habakkuk    "        "      

"      chiefly  in  Judah 

"      in  Babylon 

"      in  Chaldea,  among  the  Jewish  captives 

*'      in  Judah 


Jeremiah 

Daniel 

Ezekiel 

Zechariah 

Haggai 

Malachi 


870 

825 

795 

7B5-725 

753- 705 

750-725 

630 
630 
625 

628-587 
603-538 

595-574 
520-518* 
520 
440 


CHAPTER   XLVIII. 

THE   BOOK   OF   THE    PROPHET   ISAIAH. 

book  is  justly  placed  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  at  the  head  of  the 
A  prophetic  writings.  Isaiah  is  the  most  sublime,  versatile,  and 
comprehensive  of  all  the  prophets.  He  rebukes  the  wicked,  hypo 
critical  Jews,  exhorts  them  to  repentance,  and  assures  them  of  par 
don.  In  the  boldest  and  most  eloquent  language  he  predicts  the 
overthrow  and  utter  desolation  of  the  great  cities  of  the  ancient 
world,  and  portrays  in  the  most  graphic  manner  the  sufferings  and 
The  character-  ^ie  §^ory  °^  tne  ^uture  Messiah,8  the  universal  extension 
istics  of  isa-  of,  his  kingdom,  and  the  happiness  of  mankind  under 
is  prophecy,  ^  m^  ^^  beneficent  sway;  and  in  language  of  in 
comparable  grandeur  he  sets  forth  the  attributes  and  prerogatives 
of  Jehovah.  Upon  the  whole,  his  prophecy  is  the  most  wonderful 
book  of  the  ancient  world. 

It   bears  the  inscription  :  "  The  vision  (pin,  singular  for  plural, 

visions)  of  Isaiah  (*rrjw%  Yeshayahu),4  son  of  Amoz,  which  he  saw 


1  The  book,  however,  which  bears  his  name,  was  probably  not  written  until  a  short 
time  before  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

"And  perhaps  also  later. 

*  Jerome  regarded  Isaiah  not  as  a  prophet  only,  but  also  as  an  evangelist  and 
apostle. — Comment,  on  Isaiah.  4"Help  of  Jehovah." 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  365 

concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah." 

Isaiah  is  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xix,  where  he  consoles  Hezekiah, 
and  assures  him  of  deliverance  from  the  king  of  Assyria,  whose  de 
feat  he  predicts.     He  appears,  also,  in  the  subsequent  history  of  Hez 
ekiah  (2  Kings  xx). 

This  book  is  referred  to  as  a  source  for  the  history  of  Hezekiah, 
under  the  title  of  "  The  vision  of  Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz  " 
(2  Chron.  xxxii,  32).  In  addition  to  the  book  of  prophecies  Isaiah 
wrote  the  life  of  Uzziah  (2  Chron.  xxvi,  22).  From  chaps,  vii  3  ;  viii, 
3,  18,  it  appears  that  he  was  married,  and  had  several  children.  He 
dwelt,  it  would  seem,  in  Jerusalem,  and  laboured  for  the  welfare  of  the 
people  in  the  capital.  Respecting  the  time  and  circumstances  of  his 
death  nothing  is  known  with  certainty.  The  ancient  tra-  personal  his- 
ditions  of  the  Jews,  followed  by  some  of  the  early  Chris-  ^rjot  isaiab. 
tian  fathers,  state  that  he  was  sawed  to  pieces  by  the  wicked  King 
Manasseh,  who  made  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  run  with  innocent 
blood  (2  Kings  xxi,  i6).!  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  this  tra 
dition,  and  there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (chap,  xi,  37),  where,  in  speaking  of  the  ancient  saints,  it 
is  said  they  "were  sawn  asunder." 

It  would  seem,  from  chap,  vi,  that  Isaiah  was  called  to  the  prophetic 
office  in  the  last  year  of  Uzziah's  reign,  to  which  the  vision  de 
scribed  in  that  chapter  most  probably  belongs.  His  prophetic  office, 
accordingly,  extended  from  about  B.  C.  758,  through  the  reigns  of 
Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  at  least  fourteen  years  of  that  of  Hezekiah 
(2  Kings  xviii,  13,  etc.),  embracing  a  period  of  forty-six  years.  We 
have  no  evidence,  except  what  Jewish  tradition  affords,  that  he  lived 
until  the  time  of  Manasseh.  The  reference  to  Isaiah  as  a  source  for 
the  history  of  Hezekiah  can  mean  no  other  book  than  the  one  we 
now  possess,  so  that  this  reference  furnishes  no  proof  that  Isaiah 
outlived  Hezekiah.  But  if  the  Jewish  tradition  be  received  as  true, 
his  prophetic  office  was  continued  for  sixty  years  or  upwards. 

The  time  of  his  prophetic  labours  embraced  monarchs  of  widely 
different  characters,  and  periods  of  varied  religious  con-  Th  tl 
dition.  The  long  reign  of  Uzziah  was  highly  prosperous,  Isaiah's  pro- 
and  his  fame  spread  far  and  wide  (2  Chron.  xxvi,  8,  15) ;  piietic  labcure' 
but  in  his  last  days  he  was  afflicted  with  leprosy  (2  Kings  xv,  5  ; 
2  Chron.  xxvi,  21).  Notwithstanding  his  pious  disposition,  the  peo 
ple  still  burnt  incense  on  the  high  places  (2  Kings  xv,  4).  Jotham, 
although  an  upright  monarch,  was  not  especially  distinguished  for 
piety,  and  the  people  in  his  reign  acted  corruptly  (2  Chron.  xxvii,  2). 

JSee  a  collection  of  these  traditions  in  Gesenius'  Com.  on  Isaiah,  vol.  i,  pp. 


S6S  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

His  successor,  Ahaz,  signalized  his  reign  by  abominable  idolatries, 
and  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  brought  low  (2  Chron.  xxviii).  Hez 
ekiah,  who  succeeded  him,  was  distinguished  for  piety  and  zeal  in 
the  destruction  of  idolatry  and  in  the  promotion  of  the  worship  of 
God  (2  Chron.  xxix).  In  the  reign  of  this  latter  monarch  Sennach 
erib,  king  of  Assyria,  invaded  Judah,  and  took  all  its  fenced  cities, 
and  demanded  and  received  tribute  from  its  king. 

The  book  contains  sixty-six  chapters,  and  falls  naturally  into  three 
parts.  The  first  (chaps,  i-xxxv)  consists  of  rebukes  of  the  children 
of  Judah,  earnest  exhortations  to  them,  the  prophet's  call  to  his 
sacred  office,  and  prophecies  respecting  Judah,  Israel,  Moab,  Edom, 
Damascus,  Babylon,  Assyria,  Tyre,  Ethiopia,  and  Egypt.  The  sec- 
contents  of  onc*  Part  (cnaPs-  xxxvi-xxxix)  contains  an  account  of 
Isaiah's  proph-  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Sennacherib,  (in  the  fourteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah),  the  deliverance  of  Jerusa 
lem,  the  sickness  and  recovery  of  Hezekiah,  the  visit  of  the  mes 
sengers  of  Merodach-baladan,  king  of  Babylon,  to  him  after  his  re 
covery,  and  Isaiah's  prophecy  to  him  of  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
The  third  part  (chaps,  xl-lxvi)  contains  long  prophetic  and  horta 
tory  discourses,  in  which  the  prophet  predicts  the  return  of  the  Jews 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  encourages  the  people  to  trust  in 
Jehovah,  and  consoles  them  with  the  sure  promises  of  Divine  help. 
He  also  describes  prophetically  the  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer 
and  the  glory  of  his  kingdom,  and  at  the  same  time  sets  forth  in 
lofty  language  the  attributes  and  prerogatives  of  Jehovah.  This 
division  of  Isaiah  is  called  by  the  Germans  "  Book  of  Consolation  " 
(Trostbuch). 

ATTACKS   ON   THE   GENUINENESS   OF   PORTIONS   OF   ISAIAH. 

Respecting  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecies  of  this  book  no 
doubt  was  expressed,  so  far  as  we  know,  in  the  ancient  Jewish  and 
Christian  Churches.  Aben  Ezra,  a  distinguished  Spanish  rabbi  of 
the  twelfth  century,  was  the  first  to  intimate  that  the  prophecies  of 
the  last  part  of  the  book  were  written  by  King  Jechoniah  at  the  time 
of  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

No  attention,  however,  was  paid  to  this  intimation ;  but  about  1780 
Koppe'g  objec-  !•  **•  Koppe,  Professor  at  Gottingen,  made  additions  to 
UQHS.  the  German  translation  of  Lowth's  Isaiah,  in  which 

he  opened  the  attack  on  the  genuineness  of  a  large  portion  of  the 
prophecies.  Gesenius,  the  distinguished  Hebraist  of  the  rationalistic 
school  remarks  on  Koppe's  criticism :  "  He  first  called  attention  to  the 
necessity  of  rejecting,  on  historical  grounds,  as  the  prophet's,  many 
parts  of  the  collection.  But  as  he  went  much  too  far  in  the  separa- 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  367 

tion  of  connected  wholes,  and  often  proceeded  in  an  arbitrary  man 
ner  his  criticism  lacks  a  firm  support,  and  the  collection  appears  to 
him  as  a  loose  heap  of  dissevered  fragments  of  different  poets  of  dif 
ferent  ages  shuffled  like  cards  in  a  game.  However  groundless  this 
appears  upon  closer  examination,  it  has  been  implicitly  followed  by 
several  of  the  moderns."  ' 

Since  that  time  rationalistic  criticism,  with  one  voice,  has  denied 
the  genuineness  of  the  last  part  of  Isaiah  (chaps,  xl-lxvi),  and  attrib 
uted  it  to  an  unknown  prophet  who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Baby. 
Ionian  captivity.  It  has  also  assailed  the  genuineness  of  single 
prophecies  in  other  parts  of  the  book.  Eichhorn  carried  the  hy 
pothesis  of  separate  documents  so  far  as  to  divide  the  book  into 
eighty- five  oracles  or  fragments,  which  he  attributed  to  very  differ 
ent  authors  and  times.  This  is  an  extreme  to  which  the  skeptical 
criticism  of  the  present  time  does  not  dare  to  go. 

ANCIENT   TESTIMONY   TO    THE    GENUINENESS    OF   THESE 
PROPHECIES. 

The  apocryphal  writer  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  a  man  of  learning 
and  great  ability,  who  flourished  in  the  beginning  of  the  Oplnlon  of  Je_ 
second  or  third  century  before  Christ,  thus  bears  his  tes-  sus,  the  son  of 
timony  to  Isaiah  and  his  prophecies  :  "  Isaiah,  the  great  slracn- 
prophet,  faithful  was  he  in  his  vision.  In  his  days  the  sun  went 
back  and  prolonged  the  life  of  the  king.  He  saw  by  a  mighty  spirit 
the  last  times,  and  he  comforted  those  who  mourned  in  Zion.  For 
ever  he  showed  future  things,  and  secret  things  before  they  came  to 
pass"  (chap,  xlviii,  22-25).  ^n  tnis  testimony  there  is  an  obvious 
reference  to  the  last  great  division  of  Isaiah  (chaps,  xl-lxvi).  In 
the  Septuagint,  completed  in  all  probability  before  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  before  Christ,  all  the  prophecies  of  this  book  stand 
under  the  name  of  Isaiah,  and  so  they  do  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  ver 
sion,  and  in  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

The  distinguished  Jewish  historian,  Josephus,  born  four  years 
after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  speaking  of  a  temple  opinion  of  Jo- 
built  in  Egypt  by  the  Jew  Onias,  about  B.  C.  149,  re-  MV^US. 
marks  :  "  The  prophet  Isaiah  had  predicted,  about  six  hundred 
years  before,  the  building  of  this  temple  by  a  Jew  "a  (Isa.  xix,  19). 
He  also  states  that  God,  "  having  moved  the  soul  of  Cyrus,  caused 
him  to  write  to  all  Asia  that  CYRUS  THE  KING  SAYS:  'Since 
the  supreme  God  has  made  me  king  of  the  inhabited  earth,  I  am 
persuaded  that  he  is  the  beiag  whom  the  nation  of  the  Israelites 
worship.  For  he  predicted  my  name  through  the  prophets,  and 

'Commentar  i/ber  den  Jesaia,  vol.  i,  p.  136.  *  De  Bel.  Jud.,  vii,  IO,  3. 


368  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

that  I  should  build  his  temple  in  Jerusalem  in  the  land  of  Judc* 
These  things  Cyrus  knew  from  his  reading  the  book  which  Isaiah 
left  of  his  prophecies,  two  hundred  and  ten  years  before."1  The 
passages  referring  to  Cyrus  are  chaps,  xliv,  28;  xlv,  i.  So,  at  least, 
it  is  evident  that  Josephus  recognised  Isaiah  as  the  author  of  the 
last  division  of  the  book,  as  well  as  of  the  former  part.  He  appears 
to  have  had  no  suspicion  that  the  latter  portion  belonged  to  the 
Babylonian  captivity. 

Ancient  Jewish  tradition*  attributed  the  whole  book  to  Isa:ah, 
and  ascribed  the  editing  of  it  to  Hezekiah  and  his  companions. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  whole  book  is  attributed  to  Isaiah,  and  we 

isaiah  in  New  have  quotations  as  the  language  of  Isaiah  in  various  places, 
Testament.  e  g>  fn  ]y[att  {{{^  ^  from  jsa  x^  3;  m  ]yjatt  jv<  ^  from 

Isa.  ix,  1,2;  in  Matt,  iv,  16,  from  Isa.  xlii,  7  ;  and  in  Matt,  xiii,  14,  our 
Saviour  quotes  as  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  chap,  vi,  9,  10.  Matth  >w 
viii,  17,  is  a  reference  to  Isa.  liii,  4;  Matt,  xii,  17-20,  is  from  Isa.  x  ii, 
1-3;  Luke  iv,  17-19,  from  Isa.  xli,  i,  2;  John  i,  23,  from  Isa.  xl,  3; 
and  Acts  viii,  28-35,15  a  reference  to  Isa.  liii,  7,  8.  St.  Paul  a  so 
quotes  as  Isaiah's,  in  Rom.  x,  16,  20,  21,  Isa.  liii,  i,  Ixv,  i,  2. 

Jewish  history  and  tradition  know  no  period  when  any  of  t  \e 
prophecies  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah  were  attributed  to  any  othjr 
prophet;  and  the  very  fact  that  they  are  collected  into  one  who'e, 
at  the  head  of  which  stands  the  name  of  Isaiah,  is  a  clear  pro  >f 
that  the  collector — if  the  prophet  himself  did  not  arrange  his  prop,  i- 
ecies — regarded  them  as  belonging  to  him.  There  can  be  no  dou  )t 
that  a  book  of  Isaiah's  prophecies  existed  for  more  than  a  ce  i- 
tury  before  the  Babylonian  captivity.  This  book  must  have  co  i- 
tained  at  least  the  greater  portion  of  chaps,  i-xxxix.  If  we  are 
now  to  suppose  that  the  author  of  the  last  part  (chaps,  xl-lxvi)  was 
not  Isaiah,  but  a  prophet  who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonlm 
captivity,  how  could  it  have  come  to  pass  that  so  great  a  prophet, 
who  wrote  nearly  one  half  of  the  book,  the  sublimest  portion,  should 
have  been  wholly  unknown,  and  that  his  work  should  have  been 
added  to  Isaiah,  though  before  the  captivity  it  had  no  existence? 
Ezra  doubtless  made  a  collection  of  the  canonical  books,  but  how 
could  he  have  been  deceived  respecting  a  book  written  in,  or  so 
near,  his  age  ? 

The  violent  improbability,  if  not  impossibility,  of  the  writings  of 
impossibility      different  prophets  being  blended  together  and  attributed 
to  one  author,  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  twelve 
minor  prophets,  though  in  ancient  times  contained  in 
a  single  book,  were  carefully  separated  and  distinguished,  though 
'Antiq.,  liber  xi,  I,  I.  'Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  14-17. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  369 

several  of  them  are  very  small,  Obadiah  consisting  of  a  single  chap 
ter,  and  Haggai  of  but  two. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  prophets  themselves  in 
scribed  their  names  at  the  beginning  of  the  books  of  their  prophe 
cies,  to  give  them  authority  among  the  people ;  and  it  is  difficult  to 
suppose  that  the  last  part  of  Isaiah  (chaps,  xl-lxvi),  if  it  had  been 
written  by  another  prophet,  would  have  been  left  anonymous. 

The  position  which  the  book  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  holds — 
standing  at  the  head  of  the  prophets — was  assigned  it  by  Isalah.g  p^. 
the  Masorites  and  the  Spanish  manuscripts,  and  also  by  tion  among  the 
the  Hebrews  in  the  time  of  Jerome.1  And  David  Kim-  propbecles- 
chi,  a  celebrated  rabbi  (about  A.  D.  1200),  remarks  that  in  all  good 
manuscripts  Isaiah  stands  before  Jeremiah.8  Gesenius  quotes  a 
passage  from  the  Talmud  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  rabbies  give 
the  following  order  of  the  prophets:  "Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah, 
and  the  twelve  minor  prophets."  The  ground  of  this  arrangement 
of  the  Talmudists  is  stated  to  have  been  that  they  wished  to  place 
Isaiah,  which  is  so  full  of  consolation,  immediately  after  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  who  predicted  so  much  concerning  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  temple.  Vitringa  suspected  that  the  arrangers 
of  the  canon  placed  Jeremiah  immediately  after  Kings,  because  the 
last  part  of  the  latter  book  has  much  in  common  with  this  prophet. 
In  the  German  and  Gallic  manuscripts  Isaiah  stands  after  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel.8  Upon  the  whole,  no  sound  argument  can  be  adduced 
from  the  position  of  Isaiah  in  the  canon  in  favour  of  the  late  origin 
of  the  last  part  of  the  book. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  PARTS 
OF  THE  BOOK,  AND  THE  DATE  OF  THEIR  COMPOSITION. 

Rationalistic  criticism  is  unable  to  do  justice  to  the  prophecies 
of  Isaiah ;  for  it  allows  no  real  divine  inspiration,  and  limits  the 
prophet's  vision  by  the  natural  horizon.  All  that  transcends  this  is 
pronounced  spurious.  Delitzsch  well  observes  :  "  Modern  criticism 
finds  itself  hampered  between  two  prejudices  :  there  is  views  of  De- 
no  real  prophecy — there  is  no  real  miracle.  This  crit-  1Itzsca- 
icism  calls  itself  free,  but  upon  closer  examination  it  is  found  in  a 
dilemma.  In  this  dilemma  it  has  two  magic  words  with  which  it 
fortifies  itself  against  every  impression  of  historical  evidence.  As 
it  transforms  the  histories  of  miracles  into  traditions  and  myths,  so 
it  either  transforms  the  prophecies  into  predictions  after  thr  events 
[vatictnia  post  eventuni]^  or  brings  the  predicted  events  into  such 

'Preface  to  Samuel  and  Kings.  a In  Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  17. 

*See  Gesenius'  Com.  iiber  Jesaia,  vol.  i,  p.  23. 
VOL.  I.— 24 


370  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

close  connexion  with  the  prophet  that  to  foresee  them  did  not  re- 
quire  inspiration,  but  only  combination."  l  The  Rationalists  "  kno\* 
exactly  how  far  a  prophet  can  see,  and  where  he  must  stand  to  see 
so  far ;  but  we  are  not  tempted  to  purchase  this  omniscience  at  the 
cost  of  the  supernatural.  We  believe  in  the  supernatural  re.ilily  of 
prophecy,  because  history  affords  us  irrefragable  proofs  of  it,  and 
because  a  supernatural  interference  (eingreifen,  grasping  into)  of  God 
in  the  interior  and  outward  life  of  men  still  to-day  occurs,  and  can 
be  tested.  But  this  interference  is  of  various  kinds  and  degrees, 
and  likewise  the  distant  view  of  the  prophets  is  in  proportion  to 
their  gift  (charisma)  of  very  different  degrees."5 

The  first  twelve  chapters  of  Isaiah  are  undoubtedly  genuine.  Ge- 
senius  concedes  their  genuineness,  with  the  exception  of  chapter  vii, 
i-i  6,  and  a  few  other  verses.  Knobel 3  remarks :  "  All  the  prophecies 
contained  in  them  are  genuine."  De  Wette,4  also,  and  Bleek,6  con 
cede  their  genuineness. 

The  first  chapter,  which  describes  the  thoughtlessness,  hypocrisy, 
and  wickedness  of  the  Jews,  and  the  destruction  of  their  cities  and 
the  desolation  of  their  country,  seems  to  have  been  written  by  Isaiah 
in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  after  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Sennach 
erib,  as  the  condition  of  things  seems  especially  to  suit  that  period. 
The  prophet  seems  to  have  intended  it  as  an  introduction  to  his 
prophecies.  In  chap,  ii,  2-4  there  is  a  Messianic  passage,  the  same 
as  Micah  iv,  1-3.  As  it  stands  in  Isaiah  distinct  from  the  connexion, 
and  forms  part  of  a  connected  prophecy  in  Micah,  it  is,  most  proba 
bly,  a  quotation  in  the  former  from  the  latter. 

At  the  head  of  the  second  chapter  stands  the  inscription,  "  The 
Analysis  of  the  word  that  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  saw  concerning  Judah 
chapters.  an(j  Jerusalem."  Chapters  ii-iv  contain  threatenings  of 
God's  judgments  upon  the  people  of  Judah  for  idolatry,  wickedness, 
and  pride,  accompanied  with  the  promise  of  future  blessedness. 
Gesenius  refers  these  prophecies  to  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  in  which 
he  is  followed  by  some  critics.  Keil  refers  them  to  the  time  of 
Jotham.  And  this  seems  to  us  the  most  probable.  For  if  these 
chapters  do  not  belong  to  the  reign  of  that  monarch,  it  is  difficult  to 
assign  any  to  his  time.  Chapter  v  contains  a  parable  of  a  vineyard, 
addressed  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  respecting  Judah  and  Israel, 
and  ends  with  the  denunciation  of  divine  judgments  upon  the  wick 
ed.  This,  also,  probably  belongs  to  the  time  of  Jotham.  Chapter  vi 

1  Commentar  iiber  den  Jesaia,  p.  23.  'Ibid.,  p.  409. 

•  Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  xxii.  4  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  423. 

*  Einleitung,  p.  457.     Bleek,  however,  excepts  chap,  ii,  2-4,  which  he  thinks  wa* 
aot  written  by  Isaiah. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  371 

contains  the  prophet's  call  to  his  holy  office,  in  the  last  year  of  Uz- 
ziah's  reign.  Chapter  vii  states,  that  in  the  days  of  Ahaz  the  kings 
of  Syria  and  Israel  combined  against  the  king  of  Judah,  and  that  the 
prophet  predicted  their  defeat,  giving  Ahaz  a  sign,  that  a  virgin 
should  conceive  and  bear  a  son  who  should  be  called  "  Immanuel." 
Isaiah  declares  the  impending  judgments  of  God  from  the  hands 
of  the  Assyrians.  Chapters  viii-ix,  7,  contain  a  prediction  of  the 
overthrow  of  Damascus  and  Samaria  by  the  Assyrians,  and  an  ex 
hortation  to  trust  in  God.  They  also  contain  a  prediction  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom.  The  prophecy  was  in  all  probability  delivered 
in  the  time  of  Ahaz.  Chapter  ix,  8-x,  4  is  a  prophecy  respecting 
the  destruction  of  Israel,  delivered  probably  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
reign  of  Ahaz.  Chapter  x,  5-34  predicts  the  invasion  of  Judah  by 
the  king  of  Assyria,  and  was  probably  written  in  the  last  part  of  the 
reign  of  Ahaz.  Chapters  xi  and  xii  predict  the  appearance  of  the 
Messiah  from  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  his  glorious  reign  over  Jews 
and  Gentiles. 

PROPHECIES   CONCERNING  FOREIGN   NATIONS   (XIII-XXIIl) — GENU 
INENESS  of  xin-xiv,  23. 

This  section  is  a  prediction  of  the  overthrow  and  perpetual  deso 
lation  of  Babylon,  and  the  restoration  of  Israel.  These  prophecies 
are  denied  to  be  Isaiah's  by  Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  De  Wette, 
Knobel,  and  Bleek,  on  the  ground  that  the  stand-point  of  the  Baby 
lonian  captivity  is  assumed  in  them.  They  attribute  them  to  a 
prophet  living  in  the  last  part  of  the  captivity.1  But  the  inscription 
attributes  the  section  to  Isaiah :  "  The  burden  (or  oracle)  against 
Babylon  which  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  did  see  "  (chap,  xiii,  i) ;  and 
this  should  not  be  rejected  without  the  most  cogent  reasons. 

That  Isaiah  would  deliver  a  prophecy  against  the  Assyrian  power, 
especially  against  Babylon,  was  extremely  probable,  as  Reasons forthe 
that  power  in  his  day  had  captured  many  cities  of  Judah,  genuineness, 
and  threatened  Jerusalem  (2  Kings  xviii,  i3~xix,  37) ;  and,  also,  be 
cause  the  prophet  had  predicted  to  Hezekiah  that  the  Jewish  people, 
with  his  treasures,  should  be  carried  away  captive  to  Babylon.  It 
was  especially  proper  that  he  should  deliver  a  prophecy  against 
the  oppressor  of  Israel.  This  probability  is  strengthened  by  the 
fact  that  Isaiah  delivered  predictions  against  nations  and  cities  far 
less  important  than  Babylon,  and  which  had  not  such  close  relations 
with  the  Hebrews.  In  the  early  part  of  Hezekiah's  reign  the  king 
of  Assyria  had  taken  captive  the  ten  tribes,  and  removed  them  to 

1  Gesenius  and  Bleek  acknowledge  that  the  prophecy  was  written  before  the  cap- 
¥ure  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus. 


.    372  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

his  dominions,  and  colonized  their  land  with  his  own  subjects,  partly 
from  Babylon. 

In  the  list  of  the  foreign  nations  against  which  Isaiah  directs  his 
prophecies,  Babylon  stands  first.  Then  follow  Moab,  Damascus, 
Ethiopia,  Egypt,  Babylon  repeated,  and  Tyre.  The  Prophet  Micah, 
a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  predicts  that  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
shall  go  to  Babylon,  and  there  be  redeemed  from  their  enemies 
(Micah  iv,  10).  In  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  respecting  Babylon,  God 
threatens  to  stir  up  the  Medes  against  Babylon.  The  Medes  were 
then  beginning  to  attract  attention.  Their  revolt  from  the  Assyrians, 
soon  after  which  they  made  Dejoces  king,  occurred,  according  to 
Herodotus  (i,  95-102),  about  B.  C.  710,  but  according  to  Ctesias, 
about  B.  C.  876. 

If  the  prophecy  had  been  written  after  the  time  of  Cyrus,  who  cap 
tured  Babylon,  it  would  have  been  different,  for  Cyrus  was  the  king 
of  Persia,  and  united  the  Medes  to  his  kingdom.  He  is  always 
called  in  Scripture  king  of  Persia  (Ezra  i,  i ;  iii,  7,  etc.).  Babylon, 
though  captured  by  Cyrus,  was  not  destroyed,  but  afterward  gradually 
lost  its  splendour,  so  that  about  the  time  of  Christ  it  had  become  a 
great  desert  (Strabo  xvi,  738).  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  prophecy 
was  written  after  the  event.  The  Prophet  Jeremiah,  about  the  be 
ginning  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  delivers  a  prophecy  in  two  very 
long  chapters,  in  which  he  uses  some  of  the  very  phrases  employed  by 
Isaiah.  (Compare  Jer.  1,  39,  40,  with  Isaiah  xiii,  19,  20,  etc.). 

The  prophecy  in  Isaiah  is  brief  and  strong,  altogether  in  the  style 
of  Isaiah,  and  is,  doubtless,  the  earlier  one  ;  while  that  in  Jeremiah, 
from  its  extended  form,  is  evidently  the  later. 

The  genuineness  of  the  prophecy  has  been  defended  by  Hengsten- 
berg,  Havernick,  Keil,  Delitzsch,  and  others. 

Chapter  xiv,  24-27  is  a  prophecy  against  Assyria,  the  genuineness 
of  which  is  acknowledged  by  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  Knobel,  and 
Bleek.  Chapter  xiv,  28-32  is  a  prophecy  against  the  Philistines, 
delivered  in  the  year  that  Ahaz  died,  warning  them  against  rejoicing 
on  account  of  his  death.  Its  genuineness  is  acknowledged  by  Ge 
senius,  De  Wette,  and  Knobel.  Chapters  xv,  xvi  contain  prophecies 
against  Moab,  threatening  it  with  destruction.  Gesenius  thinks  that 
these  two  chapters  were  written  by  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  or  by 
an  older  prophet,  and  that  the  epilogue  (chap,  xvi,  13,  14)  was  wi it- 
ten  by  Isaiah.  Bleek  thinks  the  principal  prophecy  proceeds  either 
from  Isaiah,  or  at  least  from  some  one  in  his  time,  and  that  the  epi 
logue  was  added  later.  Also  Knobel  thinks  chaps,  xv  and  xvi  belong 
to  a  prophet  older  than  Isaiah.  But  there  is  no  good  reason  for  de 
nying  their  genuineness.  Chapter  xvii,  i-u  is  a  prophecy  against 


OF  THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  373 

Damascus  and  Samaria,  the  genuineness  of  which  is  conceded  by 
Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and  other  Rationalists.  It  belongs,  probably,  to 
the  first  part  of  Hezekiah's  reign.  Chapter  xvii,  12-14  is  a  prophecy 
directed  against  the  enemies  of  Judah,  most  probably  the  Assyrians. 
It  is  undoubtedly  genuine,  and  belongs  most  probably  to  the  first 
part  of  Hezekiah's  reign.  Chapter  xviii  contains  a  prophecy  against 
the  Ethiopians,  the  genuineness  of  which  is  not  denied  by  Gesenius 
and  De  Wette.  It  belongs  unquestionably  to  the  time  of  Hezekiah. 
Chapter  xix  is  a  prophecy  against  Egypt.  Its  genuineness  is  con 
ceded  by  Gesenius  and  De  Wette,  and  Schrader  remarks  that  "there 
is  no  good  reason  for  doubting  the  integrity  of  the  prophecy."1 
Bleek  also  attributes  it  to  Isaiah.8  It  belongs  to  the  time  of  Heze 
kiah.  Chapter  xx  relates  a  symbolic  action  performed  by  Isaiah  in 
the  time  of  Sargon,  king  of  Assyria,  accompanied  with  a  prophecy 
that  the  king  of  Assyria  would  lead  captive  the  Egyptians  and 
Ethiopians.  It  is  undoubtedly  genuine,  and  belongs  to  the  time  of 
Hezekiah.  Chapter  xxi,  i-io  is  a  prophecy  against  Babylon,  which 
is  denied  by  Gesenius,  Knobel,  and  Bleek  to  be  Isaiah's,  and  is 
referred  by  them  to  a  prophet  living  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity.  Gesenius  3  and  Knobel,4  however,  acknowledge  that  it 
was  written  before  the  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus.  But  there  is  no 
sufficient  ground  for  denying  the  prophecy  to  be  Isaiah's.  Chapter 
xxi,  n,  12  is  an  oracle  respecting  Dumah,  an  Ishmaelitish  tribe  in 
Arabia.  Gesenius,  Knobel,  and  Bleek  find  no  reason  to  deny  its 
genuineness.  Chapter  xxi,  13-17  is  a  prophecy  concerning  Arabia, 
which  Gesenius  and  Bleek  find  no  good  ground  for  denying  to  be 
Isaiah's.  Chapter  xxii,  1-14  is  a  prophecy  of  the  invasion  of  Judah 
by  Sennacherib,  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  and 
it  appears  to  have  been  delivered  just  before  that  event.  There  is 
no  dispute  about  its  genuineness.  Chapter  xxii,  15-19  is  a  proph 
ecy  against  Shebna,  who  was  over  the  treasury  in  the  middle  of 
Hezekiah's  reign.  Chapter  xxii,  20-25  ^s  a  prediction  respecting  Eli- 
akim,  who  is  to  take  the  place  of  Shebna.  Chapter  xxiii  predicts 
the  overthrow  of  Tyre.  Rosenmiiller  and  Bleek  deny  the  genuine 
ness  of  this  prophecy,  and  attribute  it  to  a  prophet  in  the  age  of 
Jeremiah.  On  the  other  hand,  its  genuineness  is  acknowledged  by 
such  Rationalists  as  Gesenius6  and  Knobel;  *  and  Schrader7  declares 
there  are  no  sufficient  reasons  for  its  denial.  The  prophecy  refers 
either  to  the  siege  of  Tyre  by  Shalmaneser  (Josephus,  ix,  14)  for  fivt 

'De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  418.        .  *  Einleitung,  p.  460. 

*  Commentar  iiber  Jesaia,  pp.  649,  650.  4  Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  p.  148. 

'Commentai  uber  Jesaia,  pp.  707-718.  'Der  Prophet  Jes.,  pp.  165-176. 

T  De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  419. 


374  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

years,  or  to  the  thirteen  years'  siege  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Josephus, 
x,  u.)  Chaps,  xxiv-xxvii  contain  prophecies  setting  forth  the  judg 
ments  of  God  upon  the  land,  and  assurances  of  Divine  favour,  and 
exhortationa  to  trust  in  God.  In  them  there  appear  to  be  references 
to  Messianic  times.  These  chapters  are  denied  to  be  Isaiah's  by 
Gesenius,  Knobel,  and  Bleek.1  The  first  two  refer  it  to  the  period  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  while  the  latter  thinks  it  probably  belongs 
to  the  age  of  King  Josiah,  or  to  the  one  immediately  afterward.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecy  is  defended  by 
Rosenmiiller,3  Havernick,  Welte,  Drechsler,  Keil,  and  Delitzsch.  Keil 
remarks  that  witness  is  given  "  to  its  genuineness  by  a  multitude  of 
our  prophet's  peculiar  and  characteristic  images,  turns,  and  expres 
sions."  There  is  nothing  in  it  to  indicate  an  age  later  than  that  of 
Isaiah. 

CHAPTERS   XXVIII-XXXIII. 

Gesenius  remarks  on  these  chapters:  "The  character  of  Isaiah's 
Admission  of  style  is  clearly  impressed  upon  the  whole,  and  the  pe- 
Gesenius.  culiar  range  of  thought  and  manner  of  representation  of 
this  prophet  are  so  clearly  found  in  them,  that  the  reader  who  gives 
any  attention  to  the  subject,  and  is  not  utterly  destitute  of  all  per 
ception  of  the  peculiarities  of  language,  cannot  at  all  doubt  the  iden 
tity  of  the  author  of  these  chapters  and  chapters  i-xii."'  The  author 
ship  of  this  section  is  conceded  by  De  Wette  and  Bleek,  and,  so  far 
as  we  know,  it  is  universally  acknowledged  to  belong  to  Isaiah.4 

These  chapters  are  referred  by  Gesenius  to  the  period  from  the 
sixth  to  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah.  1  hby  treat  of  the  Assyr 
ian  invasion.  Chapter  xxviii  is  a  prophecy  against  Ephraim  and 
Jerusalem,  in  which  their  vices  are  reproved,  and  judgment  threat 
ened.  ^  Chapter  xxix  is  a  prophecy  against  Ariel  (Jerusalem),  fol 
lowed  by  the  promise  of  returning  happiness.  Chapter  xxx  contains 
a  prophecy  against  those  who  look  to  Egypt  for  help  against  the 
Assyrians,  and  it  also  promises  future  prosperity.  Chapter  xxxi 
is  also  a  prophecy  against  those  who  seek  help  in  Egypt  against  the 
Assyrians,  and  contains,  likewise,  an  assurance  of  deliverance  from 
the  Assyrians.  Chapters  xxxii  and  xxxiii  contain  prophecies,  judg 
ments,  and  promises  of  future  prosperity  respecting  various  classes  of 
persons.  Chapter  xxxiv  contains  the  judgments  of  God  upon  the 
nations  of  the  world,  especially  upon  the  Edomites.  Chapter  xxxv 
describes  the  future  prosperity  of  the  people  of  God,  and  their  final 

1  Bleek,  however,  does  not  express  himself  with  confidence. 
'Scholia  in  New  Test,  vol.  ii,  pp.  370,  371,  2d  ed.         *  Com.  iiber  Jesaia,  p.  825. 
4  Koppe  doubted  the  genuineness  of  chap,  xxx,  1-27,  and  Ewald  oljcpts  to  th« 
genuineness  of  chap,  xxxiii. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  375 

deliverance  from  all  their  foes.  Both  chapters  are  denied  to  be 
Isaiah's,  and  are  referred  to  the  Babylonian  captivity  by  The  conflicting 
Gesenius,  Rosenmliller,  De  Wette,  Knobel,  Bleek,  and  views  of  critics, 
others.  On  the  other  hand,  their  genuineness  has  been  advocated  by 
Caspari,  Keil,  Delitzsch,  and  others.  Keil  remarks  that  Caspari  "  not 
only  gives  copious  proofs  that  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Zephaniah  had 
re  id  the  prophecy  against  Edom  in  Isaiah  xxxiv,  and  had  adopted 
thoughts,  images,  and  expressions  from  it  in  several  of  their  prophe 
cies;  but,  also,  that  he  has  thoroughly  refuted  the  opinions  adopted 
in  opposition,  that  either  the  author  of  Isaiah  xxxiv  had  the  chapters 
of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  in  question  floating  before  his  mind's  eye 
(Ewald,  Umbreit),  or  that  passages  bearing  affinity  to  Isaiah  xxxiv 
had  found  their  way  by  interpolation  into  Jeremiah  1  and  li."1  The 
two  chapters  are  closely  connected,  so  that  whatever  establishes  the 
genuineness  of  one  proves  also  that  of  the  other.  They  contain 
much  of  what  is  found  in  Isaiah  xxxii,  xxxiii,  as  Ewald  concedes; 
and  there  is  no  good  reason  for  denying  that  they  belong  to  Isaiah. 

The  second  division  of  Isaiah  is  an  historical  section  (xxxvi-xxxix), 
containing  an  account  of  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Sen-  The  ^^^  ^ 
nacherib,  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  vision  of  isaiab 
and  of  Hezekiah 's  sickness  and  recovery,  concluded  with  h 
a  prediction  of  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

That  Isaiah  should  write  an  historical  section  in  the  midst  of  his 
prophecies  is  in  accordance  with  his  usage.  We  find  historical 
events  in  chapters  vii  and  xx,  and  we  know  from  2  Chron.  xxxii,  32, 
that  Isaiah  wrote  an  account  of  Hezekiah.  It  is  exceedingly  im 
probable  that  Isaiah  would  fail  to  write  in  his  prophecies  such  an 
important  event  as  the  invasion  of  Judah  and  the  threatened  attack 
on  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib,  and  a  prediction  of  the  monarch's  de 
feat.  In  2  Kings  xviii,  i3-xx,  19,  we  have  this  same  history  almost 
verbatim,  except  that  Hezekiah 's  song  of  thanksgiving  (Isa.  xxxviii, 
9-20)  is  wanting.  Here  the  question  arises,  Was  this  section  in  Isaiah 
taken  from  the  Books  of  Kings  ?  or  is  the  narrative  in  Isaiah  the  orig 
inal,  and  that  in  Kings  the  borrowed  one  ?  or  are  both  drawn  from  a 
common  source,  the  basis  of  the  history  in  the  Books  of  Kings  ? 

Gesenius2  regards  the  narrative  in  Isaiah  as  derived  from  2  Kings; 
while  Rosenmuller,3  Knobel,4  Keil,  and  others,  think  both  views  of  Gese- 

narratives  were  derived  from  a  common  source.  Delitzsch  niusaTid  otben 
u  i  j  &  i  i  •  T  •  i  •  i  •  •  i  ...  as  to  the  seo- 

nolds    that  the  narrative  in  Isaiah  is  the  original,  which  ond  section  of 

was  used  in  the  composition  of  the  Books  of  Kings.          Isaiah. 

1  Keil's  Introd   vol.  i,  pp.  318,  319.         a  Commentar  iiber  Jesaia,  pp.  932-9361 
'Scholia  in  Old  Test.,  pp.  493,  494.       *  Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  pp.  255-257. 
6Der  Prophet  Jesaia,  pp.  372-374. 


376  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

It  is  evident  that  the  section  in  Isaiah  could  not  have  been  de 
rived  wholly  from  the  Books  of  Kings,  for  Hezekiah's  song  of  thanks 
giving  is  wanting  in  them. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  four  chapters  under 
discussion.  In  Isaiah  xxxvi,  2,  it  is  said  that  "  Rabshakeh  stood 
by  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool  in  the  highway  of  the  fuller's 
field."  This  same  phrase  occurs  in  chapter  vii,  3,  showing  that  they 
proceeded  from  the  same  writer.  In  chapter  xxxvii,  23,  occms 
the  phrase,  "  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  which  is  found  also  in  the 
passage,  2  Kings  xix,  22,  taken  from  Isaiah.  This  phrase  is  used 
by  Isaiah  twenty-five  times  from  the  first  to  the  fifty-fifth  chapter. 
But  elsewhere  it  is  found  but  five  times  in  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible, 
and  these  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  and  in  Jeremiah.  Such  an  expres 
sion  is  foreign  to  the  composer  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  and  the  pro 
phetic  style  of  the  section  is  inconsistent  with  his  being  its  author. 

Mention  is  made  in  Isaiah  xxxvi,  22,  of  Joah,  the  recorder,  in  the 
time  of  Hezekiah.  The  history  of  this  king's  reign  was  written 
down  in  annals  by  this  officer,  and  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of 
Kings  made  use  of  these  annals  and  the  history  of  Hezekiah  in 
our  Book  of  Isaiah,  when  he  narrated  the  most  important  events 
in  that  monarch's  reign.  In  this  way  it  is  easy  to  explain  the  devi 
ations  in  the  two  accounts.  Nor  has  the  account  in  Kings  a  decided 
advantage  over  that  in  the  prophet.  Even  if  its  text  were  preferable, 
that  fact  would  not  prove  its  originality,  since  the  last  chapter  of 
Jeremiah,  evidently  taken  from  2  Kings  xxv,  exhibits  a  better  text 
than  the  original.  In  the  thirty-ninth  chapter  the  Babylonian  cap 
tivity  is  predicted,  which  forms  a  connecting  link  between  the  for 
mer  and  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah. 

THE  LAST  GREAT  DIVISION  OF  ISAIAH.      (CHAPTERS  XL-LXVI.) 

This  prophecy  is  naturally  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first 
embraces  chapters  xl-xlviii,  ending  with  the  verse,  "  There  is  no 
peace,  saith  the  Lord,  unto  the  wicked."  The  second  includes 
chapters  xlix-lvii,  ending  with  the  same  words.  The  third  contains 
chapters  Iviii-lxvi,  ending  with  language  of  similar  import. 

The  first  division  (chaps,  xl-xlviii)  opens  with  the  most  beautiful. 
Armiysisofthe  anc*  cneermg  words  of  hope  and  comfort  for  Jerusalem, 
rirst  division  of  assuring  her  that  her  sins  are  forgiven.  The  prophet 
lon*  then  sets  forth,  in  language  of  great  sublimity,  the  attri 
butes  of  the  Almighty.  At  the  same  time  he  speaks  of  the  folly  of 
idolatry,  and  moves  forward  in  his  prophetic  course  to  describe 
God's  servant  (the  Messiah)  who  shall  instruct  and  redeem  men,  and 
be  "  a  light  of  the  Gentiles  "  (chaps,  xl-xlii.)  The  prophet  continues 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  377 

in  a  tone  of  affection  for  Israel,  promises  divine  assistance,  with 
bitter  sarcasm  shows  the  folly  of  idolatry,  and  dwells  upon  the 
sovereignty  and  goodness  of  God.  He  predicts  the  restoration  of 
the  cities  of  Judah,  and  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  in  which  con- 
nexion  he  speaks  of  Cyrus  as  God's  shepherd,  and  as  upheld  by  him. 
He  dwells  upon  the  sovereignty  of  God,  and  his  mercy  and  goodness 
to  his  people  (chaps,  xliii-xlv).  He  sets  forth  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  in  declaring  the  future,  and  then  speaks  of  the  folly  of  idol 
atry,  especially  in  reference  to  Babylon,  upon  which  he  announces 
the  judgments  of  God.  He  continues  to  speak  of  God's  revelation 
of  future  things  from  the  beginning,  in  which  he  remonstrates  with 
his  people,  and  declares  his  meicies  toward  them  in  ancient  days. 
The  prophet  concludes  with  the  declaration  that  there  is  no  peace 
to  the  wicked  (chaps,  xlvi-xlviii). 

In  the  second  part  (chaps.  xl;x-lvii)  the  prophet  predicts  that  the 
Messiah  shall  be  the  restorer  oi  Israel  and  the  light  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  assures  the  people  of  God's  love  to  them,  and  that  he  will  gather 
them  from  all  quarters  of  the  world.  He  declares  the  sins  of  the 
people  to  be  the  ground  of  their  sufferings,  and  sets  forth  the  provi 
dence  of  God,  and  promises  salvation  to  the  people  (chapters 
xlix-lii,  12).  There  follows  next  a  prophetic  description  of  the 
wisdom,  sufferings,  and  death  of  the  Messiah1  as  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  (chaps,  lii,  i3~liii,  12).  The  prophet  comforts  the  people  of 
God  with  the  sure  promise  of  divine  aid,  and  consequent  prosperity, 
and  exhorts  them  to  seek  his  favour,  that  they  may  live.  He  also 
reproves  the  idolatry  of  the  people,  the  blind  dogs  and  the  dumb 
watchmen  of  Israel ;  yet  the  mercy  of  God  is  promised,  while  it  is 
declared  that  there  is  no  peace  to  the  wicked  (chaps,  liv-lvii). 

In  the  third  division  (chaps.  Iviii-lxvi)  the  prophet  expostulates 
with  the  people  respecting  their  observance  of  the  out-  ^  tMrd  dl- 
ward  ordinances  of  religion  and  their  neglect  of  the  vision  of  the 
moral  law,  and  promises  prosperity  if  they  are  obedient.  last ' 
He  next  proceeds  to  enumerate  their  transgressions  (chaps.  Iviii-lix). 
After  this  he  announces  the  glory  of  Israel  in  Messianic  times;  at 
the  same  time  he  sets  forth  the  judgments  of  God,  combined  with  a 
sketch  of  his  kindness  to  Israel  (Ix-lxiii).  He  then  expostulates 
with  God  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  Israel,  the  desolation 

1  This  section  is  Messianic,  and  it  is  so  explained  by  the  ancient  Targumist,  Jon 
athan  Ben  Uzziel,  and  by  many  of  the  ancient  Jewish  commentators.  This  is  the 
only  consistent  view.  It  is  not  applicable  to  the  prophets,  to  the  pious  Israelites, 
or  to  the  Jewish  nation,  none  of  whom  can  be  the  servant  of  the  Lord.  This  serv 
ant  is  "  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob  and  to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel "  (chap, 
xlix,  6).  He  cannot,  therefore,  be  the  same  as  Israel,  nor  could  a  mere  prophet  do 
his  work. 


378  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

»f  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and  the  ruins  of  the  temple.  He  again 
reminds  the  people  of  their  wickedness,  and  predicts  the  glory  of  Is 
rael  in  future  times,  concluding  with  a  threat  of  the  punishment 
of  the  wicked  (chaps.  Ixiv-lxvi). 

GENUINENESS  OF  CHAPTERS  XL-LXVI. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  rationalistic  critics  deny  that  this 
division  belongs  to  Isaiah,  and  that  they  attribute  it  to  a  prophet 
living  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.1  Its  genuineness  has 
been  defended  by  Jahn,  Kleinert,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  De- 
litzsch,  Alexander,  and  others.  The  unity  of  the  division  has  been 
established  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  De  Wette.  In  respect  to  the 
style  of  this  division,  it  must  be  confessed  that  in  general  it  is  more 
flowing,  and  in  some  respects  different  from  some  of  the  earlier  parts 
of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  but  not  so  different  as  to  require  a  differ 
ent  author.  The  discourses  are  generally  longer  and  freer. 

On  the  style  of  Isaiah,  Ewald  remarks:  "This  is  the  very  founda 
tion  of  Isaiah's  greatness,  as  it  is  generally  one  of  those 
Isaiah's  style.  .         .  .  .     , 

things  in  which  he  stands  out  most  pre-eminently,  that 

whatever  may  be  demanded  by  the  subject  of  which  he  treats,  every 
kind  of  discourse  and  every  form  of  representation  is  ready  at  com 
mand."  No  man  always  writes  in  the  same  style;  still  less  does  one 
of  great  genius.  But  yet  the  matter  and  the  phraseology  of  this 
section  bear  some  striking  points  of  coincidence  with  the  other  parts 
of  Isaiah.  What  a  close  resemblance  there  is  between  the  Messianic 
descriptions  in  the  eleventh  chapter — acknowledged  to  be  Isaiah's — 
and  some  of  the  prophecies  of  the  latter  part  of  this  section  (chaps. 
Ix-lxvi)  !  The  phrase,  "  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  occurs  eleven 
times  in  the  first  thirty-seven  chapters  of  Isaiah,  five  times  in  the 
first  twelve,  and  fourteen  times  in  chaps,  xli-lx.  But  outside  of 
Isaiah  it  is  found  but  six  times,  three  of  which  occur  in  the  Psalms, 
two  in  Jeremiah,  and  the  remaining  one  in  2  Kings  xix,  22,  taken 
from  Isaiah  xxxvii,  23.  This  is  very  remarkable.  Another  peculiar 
ity  of  Isaiah  is,  that  he  uses  JOp,  to  call,  or  xipJ,  to  be  called,  for  simply 
to  be;  e.  g.,  chaps,  i,  26  ;  ix,  6  ;  xxx,  7  ;  xxxv,  8  ;  xliv,  5  ;  xlvii,  1,5; 
xlviii,  8;  Ivi,  7;  Iviii,  12;  Ix,  14,  18;  Ixi,  3;  Ixii,  12.  In  a  similar 
sense  TDK*,  chaps,  iv,  3  ;  xix,  18  ;  Ixii,  4.  These  peculiarities,  running 
through  the  whole  book,  are  explained  by  Gesenius — who  denies 
the  genuineness  of  about  one  half  of  the  book — on  the  suppcsi- 

1  Bleek  supposes  that  chaps.  Ivi,  Q-lvii,  IT  were  written  before  the  exile  ;  and  this 
is  the  view  of  Ewald,  who  thinks  that  chap,  liii,  I-I2  is  from  an  older  prophet,  and 
chaps.  Ixiii,  7-lxvi,  is  a  later  supplement.  Knobel  seems  favourable  to  the  view  that 
this  last  section  is  a  later  addition. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  379 

tion  that  the  author  of  the  later  portion  imitated  the  style  of  Isaiah, 
or,  what  is  more  probable,  that  a  later  hand  gave  imi-  Theory  or  GO. 
formity  to  the  whole.1  Both  of  these  suppositions  are  ut-  ^"oTt^e'iast 
terly  unfounded,  and  in  the  highest  degree  improbable;  division, 
but  one  of  them  necessarily  follows  from  the  denial  of  the  genuine 
ness  of  a  larger  portion  of  the  book.  Another  peculiarity  of  Isaiah 
is  the  use  of  "nx*,  future  of  ">SN,  for  the  present,  says,  in  the  following 
passages:  chaps,  i,  n,  18;  x,  8 ;  xxxiii,  10 ;  xl,  i,  25;  xli,  6,  21; 
Ixvi,  9.  In  other  passages,  however,  the  present  is  used,  as  in  other 
prophets.  D^tfStf,  shoots,  offspring,  occurs  in  chaps,  xxii,  24 ;  xxxiv,  i ; 

•    T    »JV 

xlii,  5;  xliv,  3;  xlviii,  19;  Ixi,  9;  Ixv,  23;  but  nowhere  else  in  the 
whole  Hebrew  Bible,  except  four  times  in  Job.  f *W,  thorn  hedge, 
occurs  but  twice  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  in  the  plural,  Isaiah  vii,  19, 
and  in  the  singular,  Isa.  Iv,  13 ;  yu,  stock,  Isa.  xi,  i ;  xl,  24;  once  in 
Job  in  the  sense  of  stump,  and  found  nowhere  else ;  D'H^T,  streams 
of  waters,  Isaiah  xxx,  25,  xliv,  4,  and  nowhere  else  in  Llngulstlc  ^ 
the  Bible.  There  are  some  other  linguistic  peculiarities  cuiiarities  of 
common  to  the  first  and  last  parts  of  the  book,  which  1 
may  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the  unity  of  the  whole,  and,  consequently, 
that  Isaiah  is  the  author  of  the  whole  book.  But  those  we  have  given 
are  the  most  striking.  The  latter  part  of  Isaiah  is  free  from  Chal- 
daisms,a  which  would  not  be  expected  if  it  were  written  about  the 
time  of  the  captivity,  or  still  later.  That  the  last  division  of  Isaiah 
should  contain  words  not  found  in  the  other  parts,  is  nothing  more 
than  might  naturally  be  expected.  It  has  been  alleged  that  the 
stand-point  of  the  last  section  (chaps,  xl-lxvi)  of  Isaiah  is  the  Baby 
lonian  captivity.  But  this  is  only  in  part  true.  For  we  find  refer 
ence  made  to  a  state  of  things  that  does  not  suit  the  captivity. 

Bleek  thinks  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  the  section 
Ivi,  9-lvii,  u,  was  written  before  the  Babylonian  captivity.  This  is 
also  the  view  of  Ewald.  Certainly  the  state  of  affairs  described  in 
this  section  belongs  to  an  age  earlier  than  that  of  the  captivity,  and 
may  pertain  to  that  of  Isaiah.  But  why  should  this  section  be 
wrested  from  the  great  mass  of  prophecy  with  which  it  is  connected, 
and  be  referred  to  a  different  age  ?  Why  should  it  not  have  great 
weight  in  determining  the  age  of  the  whole  division  of  the  book  ? 

1  Commentar  iiber  den  Jesaia .  vol.  ii,  p.  29. 

'The  Chaldee  colouring  appears  in  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  in  the  prophets  E^e. 
kiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  in  Ecclesiastes,  and  in  some  of  the  later  Psalms. 
Ezra  and  Daniel  are  partly  in  Chaldee.  There  are  some  Chaldee  words  in  Jere 
miah.  ^Pl  PfcOK,  Isa.  Ixiii,  3,  is  a  Syriasm,  as  Psalm  Ixxvi,  6,  written  before  the  cap 
tivity.  In  chap,  liii,  10,  "^Hf!  is  also  a  Syriasm. 


380  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

In  chap,  xl,  9  it  is  said :  "  O  Zion,  that  bringest  good  tidings,  get 
Ihee  up  into  the  high  mountain;  O  Jerusalem,  that  bringest  good 
tidings,  lift  up  thy  voice  with  strength ;  lift  it  up,  be  not  afraid  ;  say 
unto  the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold  your  God!"  This  verse  seems 
clearly  to  convey  the  idea  that  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah 
were  still  in  existence,  i.  e.,  that  the  captivity  had  not  yet  occurred. 
In  chap,  xliii,  22-24,  God  reproaches  Israel  for  not  offering  sacrifices 
to  him.  But  this  presupposes  that  the  temple  was  still  standing. 
In  chap.  Ivi,  4-7,  it  is  promised  to  the  eunuchs  that  they  shall  have 
a  place  in  the  house  and  within  the  walls  of  the  Lord ;  and  that 
their  burnt-offerings  and  their  sacrifices  shall  be  accepted  upon  his 
altar  if  they  keep  the  sabbaths  and  do  the  Divine  will — which  shows 
that  the  temple  was  still  standing. 

In  chap.  Iviii,  6,  we  find  this  interrogatory :  "  Is  not  this  the  fast 
that  I  have  chosen  ?  to  loose  the  bands  of  wickedness,  to  undo  the 
heavy  burdens,  and  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and  that  ye  break 
every  yoke  ?  "  The  oppression  which  the  Jews  are  here  represented 
internal  evi-  as  exercising  is  not  consistent  with  a  state  of  captivity 
dence  against  at  Babylon.  Chapter  lix  describes  a  state  of  things 

authorship dur-  .  ....  _  .    .  m,  . 

ing  tne  captiv-  scarcely  consistent  with  the  time  of  captivity.  This  is 
Ity*  true,  especially  of  verse  18,  which  refers  to  the  judg 

ments  which  God  is  about  to  inflict  for  sins.  In  chap.  Ixii,  6  it  is 
said,  "  I  have  set  watchmen  upon  thy  walls,  O  Jerusalem,  which 
shall  never  hold  their  peace  day  nor  night."  This  is  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  that  Jerusalem  at  that  time  was  a  waste.  In 
chap.  Ixvi,  3,  4,  we  have  allusions  to  sacrifices  and  to  future  judg 
ments  that  scarcely  suit  the  captivity.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  see,  if  Jeru 
salem  and  the  temple  were  in  ruins,  that  it  could  be  said :  "  A  voice 
of  noise  from  the  city,  a  voice  from  the  temple  "  (verse  6). 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  several 
passages  in  which  the  country  and  Jerusalem  are  represented  as  be 
ing  desolate,  and  the  sanctuary  profaned.  "  The  holy  cities  are  a 
wilderness,  Jerusalem  a  desolation.  Our  holy  and  beautiful  house, 
where  our  fathers  praised  thee,  is  destined  to  be  burnt"  (Gesenius, 
Heb.  Lex.),  (chap.  Ixiv,  10,  n).  The  English  version  represents  the 
burning  as  having  already  occurred.  The  phrase  used,  t?K  nantP1?  rvn, 
destined  to  be  burnt  with  fire,  occurs  also  in  Isaiah  ix,  4,  but  nowhere 
else.  Also  in  chap.  Ixiii,  18,  it  is  said:  "  Our  adversaries  have  trod 
den  down  thy  sanctuary." 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  observed  that  Isaiah  gives,  in  the  first 
chapter  of  his  prophecy,  a  fearful  picture  of  the  desolations  of  Judah, 

1  This  is  the  proper  rendering  of  the  passage.  The  marginal  reading  in  the  En« 
glish  version  is  not  admissible. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  381 

which  were  to  be  brought  upon  it,  or  had  already  been  inflicted  in 
the  time  of  Hezekiah  by  Sennacherib.  It  is  impossible  to  determine 
how  far  the  prophet  may  have  reference  to  these  calamities.  But, 
further,  it  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  prophetic  style  that  it  often  repre 
sents  future  events  as  already  present  or  past.  This  grew  out  of  the 
fact  that  the  prophecies  were  often  communicated  to  the  prophets  in 
visions,  in  which  future  events  passed  before  their  eyes  as  present 
realities.  We  find  many  passages  in  illustration  of  this.  In  Isaiah 
iii,  8,  it  is  declared  that  "Jerusalem  is  ruined,  and  Judah  is  fallen." 
It  is  not  questioned  that  this  was  written  by  Isaiah,  and  Explanation  of 
yet  its  fulfilment  was  in  the  prophet's  time  still  in  the  difficulties, 
future.  Again,  in  xxi,  9 :  "  He  answered  and  said,  Babylon  is  fallen, 
is  fallen  ;  and  all  the  graven  images  of  her  gods  he  hath  broken  unto 
the  ground."  Here,  in  a  prophecy  which  Gesenius  admits  was  writ 
ten  before  the  capture  of  Babylon,  the  city  is  represented  as  already 
fallen.  In  a  similar  way  the  future  Messiah  is  spoken  of  as  already 
born  (Isaiah  ix,  6).  So  in  Isaiah's  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of 
Tyre,  the  city  is  represented  as  already  laid  waste  (chap,  xxiii,  i). 

In  Jeremiah  viii,  16,  the  prophet,  in  predicting  the  overthrow  of 
Judah  and  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldeans,  represents  their  work  as  al 
ready  done  :  "  For  they  are  come,  and  have  devoured  the  land,  and 
all  that  is  in  it ;  the  city,  and  those  that  dwell  therein."  Again  : 
"  Pour  out  thy  fury  upon  the  heathen  that  know  thee  not,  and  upon 
the  families  that  call  not  upon  thy  name :  for  they  have  eaten  up 
Jacob,  and  devoured  him,  and  consumed  him,  and  made  his  habita- 
tira  desolate  "  (chap,  x,  25).  Here  the  prophet  calls  for  vengeance 
upon  men  for  acts  which  they  are  going  to  perform,  which  he  repre 
sents  as  already  done :  for  the  context  shows  that  the  desolation  of 
Judah  and  Jerusalem  was  still  in  the  future. 

In  Amos  ix,  n,  it  is  predicted:  "In  that  day  I  will  raise  up  the 
tabernacle  of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  I  will  close  up  the  breaches 
thereof,  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I  will  build  it  as  in  the  days 
of  old."  When  this  prophecy  was  uttered  the  tabernacle  had  not  yet 
fallen,  though  its  restoration  is  predicted.  In  Micah  iv,  8,  it  is  de 
clared,  respecting  the  daughter  of  Zion  :  "  Unto  thee  shall  it  come, 
even  the  first  dominion ;  the  kingdom  shall  come  to  the  daughter  of 
Jerusalem."  It  could  be  naturally  inferred  from  this  that  Judah  had 
no  kings,  but  that  the  kingdom  had  been  lost.  Such,  however,  was 
not  the  case  in  the  days  of  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  the  contem 
poraries  of  this  prophet.  In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  evident  that  the 
references  in  Isaiah  to  some  of  the  events  or  conditions  of  the  coun 
try  during  the  Babylonian  captivity  can  furnish  no  conclusive  proof 
that  the  last  division  of  Isaiah  was  written  during  that  period. 


382  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 

By  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  last  division  of  Isaiah  is  Messianic  ; 
at  least,  it  treats  especially  of  the  future  glory  of  Israel.  Isaiah  had 
already  predicted  to  Hezekiah  the  Babylonian  captivity  (Isaiah 
xxxix,  6,  7 ;  2  Kings  xx,  17,  18).  The  prophet  Micah  about  the 
same  time  foretells  the  captivity  in  Babylon  and  the  return  of  the 
people  :  "  O  daughter  of  Zion,  .  .  .  thou  shalt  go  even  to  Babylon 
there  shalt  thou  be  delivered ;  there  the  Lord  shall  redeem  thee 
from  the  hand  of  thine  enemies  "  (chap,  iv,  10). 

If  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  had  been  generally  confined  to  the  im 
mediate  future,  we  would  expect  little  or  nothing  in  reference  to  the 
deliverance  from  the  captivity.  But  since  he  dwells  in  such  glow 
ing  language  upon  the  Messiah's  kingdom  and  Israel's  future  glory 
it  is  but  natural  to  expect  the  announcement  of  a  return  from  Baby 
lon.  His  prediction  of  the  captivity  furnishes  him  the  theme  upon 
which  he  enlarges.  And,  after  all,  he  says  but  little  about  the  return 
from  Babylon,  but  dwells  rather  upon  a  greater  and  higher  deliver 
ance.  "  They  shall  repair  the  waste  cities,  the  desolations  of  many 
generations  "  (Isa.  Ixi,  4),  cannot  be  applied  with  any  degree  of  force 
to  the  return  from  Babylon. 

In  chaps,  xliv,  28;  xlv,  i,  Cyrus  *  is  referred  to  as  the  prince  who 
is:  to  rebuild  the  temple.  He  is  called  Koresh,  the  sun,  but  is  not 
spoken  of  as  the  king  of  any  particular  country,  nor  are  his  linea 
ments  drawn. 

We  have  another  instance  in  which  the  name  of  the  individual  is 
Prediction  by  predicted  who  is  to  accomplish  a  great  work.  In  i  Kings 
specmc  names.  x(^  2>  jt  js  related  that  a  prophet  announced  to  the  idol 
atrous  altar  of  Jeroboam  at  Bethel:  "O  altar,  altar,  thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Behold,  a  child  shall  be  born  unto  the  house  of  David,  Josiah 
by  name,  and  upon  thee  shall  he  offer  the  priests  of  the  high  places 
that  burn  incense  upon  thee,  and  men's  bones  shall  he  burn  upon 
thee."  This  prophecy  was  fulfilled  by  King  Josiah  about  three 
hundred  and  fifty  years  after  it  was  delivered  (2  Kings  xxiii, 
15-20). 

In  different  parts  of  the  last  division  of  Isaiah  God  represents 
himself  as  announcing  events  before  they  come  to  pass  (chaps,  xli, 
22-26;  xliii,  9;  xlv,  21 ;  xlvi,  10;  xlviii,  3-7),  as  a  proof  that  he  alone 
is  the  true  God.  It  is  evident  from  this  that  the  prophet  regarded 
himself  as  revealing  the  future,  and  not  as  simply  announcing  what 
was  before  the  eyes  of  all. 

1  Josephus  states  that  Cyrus  read  this  prophecy  in  Isaiah  respecting  himself,  and  waj 
induced  by  it  to  give  the  Jews  permission  to  return  to  their  own  land.  Antiq.,  xi,  i,  2. 
The  decree  of  Cyrus  in  favour  of  the  Jews  is  most  easily  explained  on  the  supposition 
that  he  had  read  this  prophecy  of  Isaiah. 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  383 

It  is  very  probable  that  Zephaniah  (about  B.  C.  625)  and  Jeremiah 
(B.  C.  629-588)  have  both  quoted  the  last  division  of  Iaajah  quoted 
Isaiah.  (Comp.  Zephaniah  ii,  15  with  Isaiah  xlvii,  8, 10.)  by  some  other 
This  latter  prophet  describes  with  withering  sarcasm  the  F 
folly  of  idolatry  (chaps,  xliv,  9-19;  xlvi,  i,  7).  Jeremiah  evidently 
refers  to  these  descriptions  in  chapter  x,  3-15.  Isaiah  is,  beyond 
doubt,  the  great  original.  There  are  also  other  passages  in  Jeremiah 
which,  from  their  very  character,  seem  to  have  been  taken  from 
Isaiah  (chaps,  xl-lxvi). 

If  there  were  found  a  few  passages  in  Isaiah  that  must  of  necessity 
be  referred  to  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  we  should  prefer 
to  regard  them  as  interpolations,  rather  than  to  reject  the  genu 
ineness  of  the  last  division  of  the  book.  But,  happily,  we  are  not 
driven  to  this  necessity.  For  we  are  not  authorized  to  limit  the 
prophetic  knowledge  of  Isaiah,  nor  have  we  any  &  priori  method  of 
determining  how  far  the  Almighty  would  disclose  to  him  the  future, 
nor  how  far  he  would  assume  the  future  as  already  present. 


CHAPTER   XLIX. 

THE     PROPHET    JEREMIAH. 

JEREMIAH  was  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  of  the  priests  in  Anathoth, 
a  city  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  about  three  miles  north-east  of 
Jerusalem.  He  began  his  prophetic  labours  while  quite  young  (chap. 
i,  6),  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon,  king  of  Judah 
about  B.  C.  629),  and  continued  them  until  the  eleventh  year  of  King 
Zedekiah,  when  the  people  of  Jerusalem  were  carried  away  captive 
to  Babylon — a  period  of  about  forty-one  years.  During  the  first 
part  of  his  ministry  he  lived  in  Anathoth,  as  appears  from  chapter 
xi,  18—23.  Here  he  purchased  a  piece  of  land  (chapter  personal  histo- 
xxxii,  6-15).  At  a  later  period  he  seems  to  have  had  a  ryof  Jeremiah, 
permanent  residence  in  Jerusalem,  until  the  city  was  taken  by  the 
Chaldeans.  It  appears  that  he  was  never  married,  as  he  gives  us  no 
intimation  of  his  having  either  wife  or  children ;  and  he  was  com 
manded  not  to  take  a  wife,  nor  to  have  sons  and  daughters  in  the 
rlace,  in  view  of  the  great  calamities  that  were  to  befall  the  land 
(chap,  xvi,  2-4).  In  the  time  of  Zedekiah  he  was  imprisoned  and 
thrust  into  a  miry  dungeon,  from  which  he  was  liberated  by  order 
of  the  king;  though  still  confined  to  the  court  of  the  prison  (chaps. 
xxxvii  and  xxxviii). 


3«4  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

When  at  length  the  city  of  Jerusalem  was  captured,  Jeremiah,  in 
accordance  with  the  command  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  released 
from  prison,  and  kindly  treated  by  Nebuzar-adan,  the  Chaldean 
general.  Not  long  after  this  he  went  into  Egypt,  to  Tahpanhes,  with 
*  company  of  Jews  (chaps,  xlii-xliv).  As  we  hear  nothing  of  him. 
it  is  uncertain  whether  he  returned  to  Palestine  or  not,  though  it  is 
probable  that  he  did.  Of  his  death  we  have  no  record. 

The  ministry  of  Jeremiah  extended  over  a  period  of  great  cor 
ruption  and  idolatry  among  the  people  of  Judah.  The  fifty-five 
years'  reign  of  the  wicked  king  Manasseh  had  sapped  the  founda 
tions  of  religion  and  morality.  Amon,  his  successor,  reigned  two 
years,  and  walked  in  the  wicked  course  of  his  father.  His  suc- 
Kings  of  Jere-  cessor,  the  pious  Josiah,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  whose 
miah's  time,  reign  Jeremiah  began  to  prophesy,  manifested  great  zeal 
in  the  service  of  God,  and  instituted  important  reforms  :  but  the 
good  results  of  his  efforts  were  in  a  great  measure  destroyed  by  the 
wicked  reigns  of  Jehoahaz  and  Jehoiakim,  his  successors.  The 
three  months'  reign  of  Jehoiachin  was  also  wicked,  and  at  its  close 
he  and  all  the  chief  men  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  treasures  of  the  city, 
were  carried  away  captive  to  Babylon. 

Jeremiah's  book  furnishes  us  with  so  much  personal  history  that  we 
have  a  clearer  perception  of  his  character  than  we  possess  of  any 
other  Hebrew  prophet.  He  is  exhibited  as  a  man  of  great  religious 
zeal,  intrepidity,  deep  sympathies,  and  great  fidelity,  and  as  suffering 
very  harsh  treatment  from  idolatrous  princes  for  his  reproofs.  His 
teachings  are  chiefly  of  a  practical  character.  He  rebukes  the  vices 
and  crimes  of  his  age,  and  earnestly  preaches  repentance.  We  miss 
in  his  book  the  sublime  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  and  find  but  few 
Messianic  passages  in  it. 

The  book  naturally  falls  into  four  divisions.  In  the  first  we  have 
His  ro  hecy  an  account  °f  tne  ca^  °f  Jeremiah  to  the  prophetic  of- 
has  four  divis-  fice,  of  his  messages  to  the  people,  of  his  expostulations 
with  them,  of  his  predictions  of  the  divine  judgments,  a 
sketch  of  his  ministry  among  the  people,  and  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
(chs.  i-xxxix).  The  second  division  (chs.  xl-xlv)  contains  an  account 
of  affairs  after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  and  states  that  the  leaders 
of  the  Jewish  people  took  all  those  who  remained  in  Judah,  with 
Jeremiah  and  Baruch.  and  went  down  to  Tahpanhes,  in  Egypt.  It 
al*>  gives  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  delivered  there.  Chapter  xlv, 
however,  gives  the  words  addressed  by  Jeremiah  to  Baruch  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  The  third  division  (chaps,  xlvi-li)  gives 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  respecting  Egypt,  the  Philistines,  Tyre 
and  Zidon,  the  Moabites,  the  Ammonites,  Edom,  Damascus,  Elam, 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  385 

and  Babylon.  The  fourth  division  consists  of  but  one  chapter  (Hi), 
giving  an  account  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  and  the  capture  of  Jeru 
salem  by  Nebuzar-adan,  the  treatment  which  the  king  received  from 
the  Babylonian  monarch,  and  the  release  of  Jehoiachin  from  impris 
onment  in  Babylon. 

THE    GENUINENESS   OF  THE   PROPHECIES  OF  JEREMIAH,  AND   THK 
DATE    OF   THEIR    DELIVERANCE. 

The  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  are  so  interwoven  with  the  events  of 
his  life,  and  bear  so  strongly  the  stamp  of  his  age,  that  ^^  genutae_ 
the  genuineness  of  but  few  of  them  has  been  questioned,  ness  generally 
As  Jeremiah  began  to  prophesy  in  the  thirteenth  year  adm 
of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  continued  in  the  prophetic  office  through 
the  eighteen  remaining  years  of  Josiah,  the  three  months  of  Jehoahaz 
(probably  the  same  as  Shallum,  Jer.  xxii,  n),  the  eleven  years  of  Je- 
hoiakim,  the  three  months  of  Jehoiachin,  and  the  eleven  years  of 
Zedekiah,  the  question  arises,  Under  what  reigns  were  the  different 
prophecies  delivered?  In  many  instances  it  is  stated  when  they 
were  delivered,  in  others  we  have  no  guide  but  critical  conjecture. 
We  are  certainly  justified  in  attributing  to  the  eighteen  years  during 
which  he  prophesied  in  the  time  of  Josiah  a  considerable  portion  of 
his  prophecies. 

We  think  it  probable  that  the  first  seventeen  chapters  were  deliv 
ered  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  Certainly  a  large  portion  of  them  be 
longs  to  this  period.  The  prophet  relates  in  the  first  chapters  the 
particulars  of  his  call  to  the  prophetic  office  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  Josiah.  In  chap,  iii,  6  he  states  :  "  The  Lord  said  also  unto  me  in 
the  days  of  Josiah  the  king,"  etc.  After  this  the  name  of  no  ruler 
is  mentioned  throughout  this  section,  and  there  is  in  it  nothing  un 
suitable  to  the  reign  of  Josiah.  In  the  time  of  this  pious  king  the 
prophet  had  protection  even  from  wicked  princes,  and  the  men  of 
Anathoth  alone  were  dangerous  foes.  This  section  contains  no  de 
nunciation  of  the  king,  but  of  the  people.  In  the  time  of  the  subse 
quent  wicked  monarchs  his  difficulties  with  kings  and  princes  begin. 
In  chap,  xiii,  18,  however,  it  is  said :  "  Say  unto  the  king  and  to  the 
queen,  Humble  yourselves,  sit  down  :  for  from  your  heads  shall  come 
down  even  the  crown  of  your  glory."  This  may  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  king  and  queen  were  to  lose  their  position,  and  it  may  seem  more 
applicable  to  some  other  rulers  than  to  Josiah  and  his  queen.  The 
prediction  might  be  considered  as  fulfilled  by  Josiah's  death  at 
Megiddo.  The  language,  however,  may  be  applied  not  to  any  in 
dividual  monarch,  but,  generally,  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish 
monarchy. 

VOL.  I.— 25 


386  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

In  these  chapters  the  genuineness  of  chap,  x,  1-16  is  denied  by 
objections  of  ^e  Wette  an(^  others,  and  the  verses  are  attributed  to  a 
De  wette  and  prophet  living  during  the  captivity,  whom  they  suppose 
to  have  written  the  last  part  of  Isaiah.  Bleek  supposes 
the  section  to  be  genuine,  and  thinks  it  belongs  to  the  time  of  Zede- 
kiah.1  Verses  6-8,  10,  are  wanting  in  the  LXX  ;  but  this  furnishes 
no  ground  for  their  rejection.  Verse  n  is  in  Chaldee,  for  which 
it  is  difficult  to  assign  a  good  reason.  It  must  be  acknowledged 
that  the  sixteen  verses  under  discussion  strongly  resemble  the  latter 
part  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  :  but  this  is  to  be  explained  by  Jer 
emiah's  imitating  Isaiah,  not  by  a  later  prophet's  retouching  him. 
In  chapter  viii  nearly  all  verse  10,  and  the  whole  of  verses  n  and  12 
are  omitted  in  the  LXX ;  but,  although  Hitzig  regards  them  as  super 
fluous,  and  as  interrupting  the  connexion,  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
their  rejection.  In  chap,  xi,  verse  7,  and  nearly  the  whole  of  8,  are 
omitted  in  the  LXX,  but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  their  being 
discarded  from  the  text.  Chap,  xvii,  1-4,  is  wanting  in  the  LXX, 
but  Hitzig  considers  it  genuine.  Certainly  its  omission  there  does 
not  justify  us  in  throwing  it  out  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Chapters 
xviii,  xix,  contain  an  account  of  Jeremiah's  being  sent  down  to  the 
potter's  house  to  see  a  work  wrought  on  the  wheels,  which  was 
marred,  and  of  Jeremiah's  application  of  it  to  the  house  of  Israel. 
Chapter  xx  contains  an  account  of  Pashur's  smiting  Jeremiah — when 
he  had  heard  the  prophecy — and  the  incidents  that  followed  it. 
These  three  chapters  are  closely  connected,  and  belong,  in  all  prob 
ability,  to  the  time  of  Jehoiakim.  Chapter  xxi,  i-io  belongs  to  the 
time  of  Zedekiah.  Chapters  xxi,  n-xxii,  19  belong  to  the  age  of 
Jehoiakim,  for  Shallum  (Jehoahaz)  had  already  been  deposed  and 
carried  into  Egypt  (chap,  xxii,  n),  and  the  reigning  monarch  is  ex 
horted  to  imitate  the  virtues  of  his  father  (Josiah,  evidently),  and 
Times  of  writ-  Jehoiakim  is  threatened  with  the  burial  of  an  ass — all  of 
which  Point  to  the  time  of  this  monarch.  Chapters 
xxii,  20— xxiii  belong  to  the  time  of  Jehoiachin  (called 
also  Coniah  and  Jechoniah),  for  God  threatens  to  deliver  him  up 
to  the  Chaldeans  (chap,  xxii,  24-28).  Chapter  xxiv  belongs  to  the 
first  part  of  Zedekiah's  reign,  after  Jehoiachin  had  been  carried 
away  captive  to  Babylon.  Chapter  xxv  was  delivered  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim.  A  part  of  the  i3th  and  the  whole  of  the  Mlh 
verse  are  wanting  in  the  LXX.  After  the  i3th  verse  there  is  no 
longer  a  correspondence  in  the  order  of  chapters  between  the  He 
brew  and  the  LXX.  Chapter  xxvii  is  attributed  in  the  Hebrew  text 
to  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  but  the  contents  clearly 

1  Einleitung,  p.  477. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  387 

show  that  it  belongs  to  the  time  of  Zedekiah,  most  probably  to  the 
early  part  of  his  reign. 

The  Peshito-Syriac  reads,  "  In  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Zedc- 
kiah,  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  came  this  word  to  Jeremiah  from 
the  Lord."  The  Septuagint  has  simply,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  The 
present  reading  of  the  Hebrew l  is  evidently  the  error  of  a  transcrib 
er,  repeating  at  the  head  of  this  chapter  the  very  words  with  which 
the  preceding  chapter  begins.  In  this  chapter  verses  7,  13,  17  are 
entirely  wanting  in  the  LXX,  and  the  last  five  verses  are  found 
mutilated.  Davidson*  does  not  think  the  seventh  verse  genuine; 
he  also  supposes  16-22  to  be  spurious,  and  a  vaticinium  ex  eventu. 
Hitzig 3  regards  the  Hebrew  text  in  general  as  corrupt  in  this  chap 
ter  where  it  contains  more  than  the  LXX.  De  Wette  thinks  the 
chapter  revised  by  a  later  hand.4 

We  cannot  agree  with  these  critics ;  for  the  mere  fact  that  some 
of  these  verses  are  wanting  in  the  LXX  furnishes  no  sufficient  proof 
that  they  were  wanting  in  the  Hebrew  text  before  the  time  of  Christ. 
The  Septuagint  has  abridged  the  text.  There  is  no  Reply  to  Hitzig 
doubt  that  the  LXX  sometimes  took  liberties  with  the  andDeWette. 
text ;  but  this  whole  chapter  is  well  connected,  and  Jeremiah's  ad 
vice  and  prophecy  are  suitable  to  the  occasion.  But  what  motive 
could  a  later  writer  have  had  to  make  the  additions,  some  of  which 
enjoin  upon  the  people  obedience  to  Nebuchadnezzar?  Certainly 
this  monarch,  who  overthrew  the  Jewish  Commonwealth,  was  not 
very  popular  with  the  Jews.  Nor  is  there  anything  in  this  chapter 
inconsistent  with  the  style  of  Jeremiah. 

Chapter  xxviii  belongs  to  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah,  and  xxix  to 
the  first  year  of  that  monarch's  reign.  In  chapter  xxix  nearly  the 
whole  of  verse  14,  and  all  of  16-20,  are  omitted  in  the  LXX.  It  is  true 
that  verses  16-19  do  not  seem  to  be  suitable  in  a  letter  to  the  cap 
tives  in  Babylon,  as  they  refer  to  the  king  (Zedekiah)  and  people 
still  remaining  in  Judah,  for  Nebuchadnezzar  had  not  yet  completed 
the  captivity  of  the  Jews.  But  yet  there  were,  perhaps,  good  rea 
sons  for  the  insertion  of  these  verses  in  the  letter  of  Jeremiah  ;  for 
the  captives  in  Babylon  declared  that  God  was  raising  up  for  them 
prophets  in  that  city  (verse  15).  These  false  prophets,6  no  doubt, 
proclaimed  that  God  would  restore  the  captives  to  their  native  land 
Jeremiah,  in  reply  to  them,  states  that  so  far  is  this  from  being  true, 

1  In  Kennicott  and  De  Rossi's  Hebrew  Bible,  MS.  224  has  the  reading  Zcdekiab, 
and  in  MS.  180  Jehoiakim  is  wanting. 

'Introduction,  vol.  iii,  pp.  99,  100.  *Der  Proph,  Jer.,  pp. 

4  De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  431. 
8  ID  illustration  of  this  see  Jeremiah  xxviii,  IO,  II. 


388  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

that  Zedekiah  and  those  who  remain  in  Judah  will  be  also  brought  to 
Babylon.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  verses  under  consideration 
were  omitted  by  the  LXX  on  account  of  their  supposed  irrelevancy. 

De  Wette  argues  that  chapters  xxvii-xxix  were  revised  by  a  later 
Another  objec-  nan<^»  from  the  use  of  the  short  form  of  several  proper 
Won  to  De  names  in  them :  JVDT  (Jeremiah),  JVJir  (Jechoniah), 
•Vpl2f  (Zedekiah),  without  the  ending,  1.  But  no  solid 
argument  can  be  drawn  from  this  in  favour  of  a  revisal  of  the  chap 
ters,  A  short  form  for  Jehoiachin  (imD,  Coniali)  is  found  in  Jer. 
xxii,  24,  28.  It  is  true  that  the  shorter  form  for  Jeremiah  is  used  in 
the  later  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  though  the  longer  form  occurs 
in  i  Chron.  xii,  13.  For  Zedekiah,  the  long  form  is  used  in  this 
very  section  in  chapter  xxix,  21,  and  is  found  in  a  later  author, 
2  Chron.  xviii,  10.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Jeremiah 
always  wrote  his  name  in  the  same  way ;  but  even  if  he  did,  we  do 
not  know  that  copyists  would  do  so.  Dr.  Davidson  thinks  there  are 
some  interpolations  in  the  twenty-seventh  chapter ;  but  on  chapters 
xxviii  and  xxix  he  remarks :  "  A  regular  glossing  or  working  over 
of  the  text  either  by  the  Deutero-Isaiah,  or  any  other  such  person, 
is  hardly  perceptible  except  to  the  eye  of  hypercriticism."  * 

Chapters  xxx,  xxxi  predict  the  restoration  of  Israel,  and  in  chap, 
xxxi,  31-34  there  is  a  reference  to  the  New  Testament  dispensation. 
They  were  written,  in  all  probability,  about  the  time  Zedekiah  was 
carried  away  captive  to  Babylon.  Chapter  xxx,  10,  n  is  wanting 
in  the  LXX.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the 
passage.  Chapter  xxxii  belongs  to  the  tenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Zedekiah,  when  the  king  of  Babylon  besieged  Jerusalem.  The  next 
chapter  (xxxiii)  belongs  to  the  same  period.  It  contains  a  Messianic 
passage  (verses  15,  16).  Verses  14-26  are  wanting  in  the  LXX. 

De  Wette8  thinks  chapters  xxx,  xxxi,  xxxiii  were  revised  by  a 
later  writer,  who,  he  imagines,  wrote  the  second  part  of  Isaiah. 
But  Dr.  Davidson  supposes  that  the  "Deutero-Isaiah  had  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  in  view  in  different  places,  and  copied  various  expres 
sions."  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  purpose  a  later  writer  would  have 
in  retouching  Jeremiah.  Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that  the  learned 
Jews  would  have  made  so  free  with  the  writings  of  the  great  prophet. 
Isaiah  the  orig-  There  is  a  considerable  number  of  passages  in  Jeremiah 
inai  m  parallel  which  strongly  resemble  Isaiah,  especially  in  the  three 
chapters  under  discussion.  And  the  question  arises, 
Which  is  the  original  ?  This  must  be  conceded  to  Isaiah,  for  the 
passages  in  Jeremiah  that  bear  such  close  affinity  with  the  last  part 
of  Isaiah  are  not  in  Jeremiah's  style. 

Introduction,  vol.  iii,  p.  xoi.  *  De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  429. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  389 

Chapter  xxxiv  belongs  to  the  last  part  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah 
fvhen  Jerusalem  was  besieged.  Chapter  xxxv  pertains  to  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  but  the  year  is  not  named;  and  the  following  chapter, 
xxxvi,  records  transactions  that  pertain  to  the  fourth  year  of  that 
monarch's  reign. 

Chapters  xxxvii,  xxxviii  relate  events,  especially  those  with  which 
Jeremiah  was  connected,  in  the  last  part  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah. 
Chapter  xxxix  gives  an  account  of  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah,  and  incidents  following  it.  Verses  4-13 
are  wanting  in  the  LXX.  Chapters  xl-xliv  relate  the  events  in 
Judah  after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  migration  of  the  chief 
men,  and  all  the  remnant  of  the  Jews  in  Judah,  accompanied  by 
Jeremiah,  to  Tahpanhes  in  Egypt.  They  also  contain  the  proph 
ecies  there  delivered  by  Jeremiah.  Chapter  xlv  contains  words  of 
consolation  to  Baruch,  delivered  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 
Chapter  xlvi,  1-12  contains  a  prophecy  against  Egypt  and  the  army 
of  Pharaoh-necho,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  Chapter  xlvi, 
13-26  is  also  a  prophecy  against  Egypt,  to  which  are  added  words 
of  consolation  to  Israel  (verses  27,  28),  delivered  also,  it  would  seem, 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 

Chapter  xlvii  is  a  brief  prophecy  against  the  Philistines.  It  was 
delivered,  the  superscription  states,  "  before  that  Pharaoh  smote 
Gaza  " — words  which  are  wanting  in  the  LXX.  De  Wette  supposes 
the  inscription  to  be  false,  because  the  prophet  threatens  the  Philis 
tines  with  destruction  from  the  north,  not  from  Egypt1  (verse  2). 
It  is  very  probable  that  the  Philistines  were  threatened  with  destruc 
tion  from  the  Chaldeans,  and  not  from  the  Egyptians.  The  state 
ment  of  the  superscription,  Before  that  Pharaoh  smote  Gaza  the 
prophecy  came  to  Jeremiah,  is  not  false.  Gaza,  Askelon,  and  all 
the  Philistines  were  to  be  ruined ;  hence  it  is  evident  that  Pharaoh's 
smiting  Gaza  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy. 
Chapter  xlviii  contains  a  prophecy  against  Moab,  in  which  a  very 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  geography  of  the  country  is  shown. 
Verses  45-47  are  wanting  in  the  LXX.  Chap,  xlix  contains  proph 
ecies  respecting  the  Ammonites,  the  Edomites,  Damascus,  Kedar, 
and  Hazor  (verses  1-33),  and  against  Elam  (verses  34-39).  With 
the  exception  of  this  last  prophecy  against  Elam,  belonging  to  the 
first  part  of  Zedekiah's  reign,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  in  what 
reign  Jeremiah  delivered  the  prophecies  in  the  last  two  chapters. 
Chapters  1,  li  contain  a  very  long  and,  in  some  respects,  minute 
prophecy  against  Babylon,  in  which  her  utter  desolation  is  predicted, 
and  to  be  effected  chiefly  by  the  Medes.  In  chapter  li,  verses  45-48 
1  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  428. 


390  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE    STUDY 

are  wanting  in  the  LXX.  This  prophecy  was  written  in  a  book,  and 
sent,  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  to  Babylon  by 
Seraiah,  who  was  commanded  by  Jeremiah  to  read  it  there,  and  then 
to  bind  a  stone  to  it,  and  to  cast  it  into  the  midst  of  the  Euphrates, 
and  to  declare,  "Thus  shall  Babylon  sink  and  rise  no  more"  (chapter 
li,  59-64). 

The  genuineness  of  the  prophecy  in  these  two  chapters  has  been 
Objections  to  assailed  by  Eichhorn,  Gramberg,  Knobel,  Ewald,  and 
genuineness,  others.  Davidson  is  inclined  to  think  that  it  was  not 
composed  by  Jeremiah.  But  Hitzig  remarks  on  this  prophecy:  "It 
exhibits  many  traces  of  its  genuineness  and  grounds  for  it.  The  use 
of  language  (chapters  1,  16;  li,  i,  3,  7,  14,  45,  55)  and  the  circle  of 
images  (chapter  li,  7,  8,  34,  37),  as  well  as  the  style,  especially  in  turns 
like  chapter  li,  2,  in  the  form  of  conclusion  (chapter  li,  57),  and  in 
the  informal  dialogue  (chapter  li,  51),  unmistakably  betray  Jeremiah. 
This  result  is  confirmed  by  chronological  data.  Assyria  has  fallen 
(chap.  1,  1 8).  Foreigners,  the  Chaldeans,  have  made  an  invasion  into 
the  land  of  Judah  which  especially  endangered  the  temple  (chaps. 
1,  n,  li,  51);  the  land  has  been  pillaged,  people  have  been  carried 
away  from  it  (chap,  li,  34),  but  Jerusalem  is  still  inhabited  (chap. 
li,  35);  and,  what  historically  cannot  now  be  otherwise,  the  present 
king  at  Babylon  is  still  Nebuchadnezzar"1  (chapter  1,  17).  He, 
however,  thinks  the  prophecy  has  been  somewhat  altered.  De 
Wette  finds  in  the  prophecy  expressions  and  turns  of  thought  char 
acteristic  of  Jeremiah,  along  with  the  peculiarities  that  belong  to 
the  second  part  of  Isaiah ;  so  that  he  suspects  that  a  later  author, 
who,  he  supposes,  wrote  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  revised  this  proph 
ecy  of  Jeremiah.3  Why  should  he  not  rather  have  supposed  that 
Jeremiah  imitated  Isaiah  ?  • 

Bleek  remarks  on  the  prophecy,  that  if  it  is  not  genuine  we  must 
suppose  that  some  one  "  composed  it  in  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  and 
added  the  epilogue,  that  the  prophecy  might  pass  for  that  prophet's 
— which,  in  itself,  is  not  probable.  But  in  the  contents  themselves 
are  found  indications  that  the  prophecy  was  composed  in  Judea 
itself,  as  the  sanctuary  still  exists  on  Zion  (chaps.  1,  5,  li,  50),  as  well 
as  the  city  of  Jerusalem  (chap,  li,  35).  To  the  same  effect  do  the 
words  (chap,  li,  51),  'For  strangers  have  forced  themselves  into  the 
sanctuaries  of  the  Lord's  house,'  suit  well  the  given  date  in  Zede- 
kiah's  time,  as  then,  after  Jehoiachin's  captivity,  Nebuchadnezzar 
had  plundered  the  temple.  But  the  words  would  not  be  applicable 
after  it  had  been  entirely  destroyed." '  The  expression, "  vengeance 

1  Der  Prophet  Jeremia,  p.  391.  a  De  Wette — Schrader,  pp.  428,  429. 

"Einleitung,  pp.  478,  479. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  3J1 

of  his  temple  "  (chapters  1,  28,  li,  n),  refers  to  the  plundering  of  the 
temple  when  Jehoiachin  was  led  into  captivity  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
(2  Kings  xxiv,  11-13).* 

We  have,  accordingly,  all  the  proof  of  the  genuineness  and  integ 
rity  of  this  prophecy  that  we  can  reasonably  demand —  Satisfactory 
the  positive  statement  that  it  was  written  by  Jeremiah  [n^ssau!^ 
(chap,  li,  60),  and  numerous  internal  marks  peculiar  to  tegrity. 
Jeremiah,  and  allusions  to  a  state  of  affairs  in  that  prophet's  time 
which  no  longer  existed  a  few  years  subsequently.     It  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  prophecy  could  have  been  revised  by  a  later  hand  with 
out  obliterating  many  of  the  traces  of  Jeremiah's  style  and  times, 
and  without  introducing  evidences  of  a  later  period. 

The  last  chapter  of  Jeremiah  (Hi)  describes  the  reign  of  Zedekiah, 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  and  the  events  connected  with  it,  and  the 
deliverance  of  Jehoiachin  from  imprisonment  in  Babylon.  This 
chapter,  we  hold,  was  not  written  by  Jeremiah,  both  on  account  of 
the  words  with  which  the  preceding  chapter  closes,  "  Thus  far  are 
the  words  of  Jeremiah,"1  and  the  statement  that  Jehoiachin  was  re 
leased  from  prison  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  his  captivity,  and 
treated  kindly  all  the  days  of  his  life.  Had  this  been  written  by 
Jeremiah  he  would  have  been  ninety  years  old,  or  more ;  but  it  is 
not  probable  that  he  reached  such  an  age.  The  chapter  was  added 
by  a  later  hand. 

THE   COLLECTION  AND   ARRANGEMENT   OF  THE   PROPHECIES   OF 

JEREMIAH. 

We  find  that  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  Lord  commanded 
Jeremiah  to  take  a  roll  of  a  book,  and  to  write  in  it  all  the  words 
that  he  had  spoken  unto  him  against  Judah  and  against  all  the 
nations  up  to  that  time.  Baruch  then  wrote  in  a  book  the  words 
from  Jeremiah,  and  read  them  to  the  people,  after  which  the  king 
burnt  up  the  book.  Baruch  took  another  roll,  and  wrote  all  the 
words  of  the  first  roll,  to  which  many  similar  words  were  added 
(chapter  xxxvi). 

In  this  same  year  (fourth  of  Jehoiakim)  mention  is  made  of  the 
prophecies,  "even  all  that  is  written  in  this  book,"  which  is  followed 
by  a  list  of  the  nations  concerning  which  Jeremiah  prophesied  (chap. 
KXV,  13).  Some  of  these  prophecies  were  delivered  at  a  later  period, 
but  are  here  named  in  order  to  give  a  complete  view.  Reference  is 
again  made  in  chapter  xlv,  i  to  Baruch's  having  "  written  these 
words  in  a  book  at  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah  in  the  fourth  year  of  Je 
hoiakim."  But  this  book  contained  none  of  the  prophecies  written 
1  These  words  are  omitted  in  the  LXX. 


392  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

after  the  fourth  year  of  that  monarch.  The  long  prophecy  against 
Babylon  was  written  by  Jeremiah  himself  (chap,  li,  60)  in  a  separate 
book,  and  sent  to  Babylon.  Baruch  may  have  also  written  for  Jere 
miah  the  last  of  his  prophecies,  as  we  find  that  lie  accompanied  the 
prophet  into  Egypt  (chapter  xliii,  6). 

It  seems  rather  singular  that  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah— with 
The  prophecies  the  exception  of  the  first  twenty  chapters—are  not  al- 
jntintibronol  wavs  arranged  in  the  order  of  time  in  which  they  aie 
logical  order,  delivered.  Nor  is  the  arrangement  in  the  LXX,  which 
differs  from  the  Hebrew  text  after  chapter  xxiv,  in  the  order  of  time. 
But,  after  all,  there  is  not  much  disorder  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
prophecies  and  the  events.  Chapters  xxiv-xxxix,  with  the  exception 
of  chapters  xxv,  xxvi,  xxxv,-  xxxvi,  contain  the  prophecies  delivered 
and  the  events  that  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  They  end 
with  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  and  the  destruction  of  the  temple  in 
the  eleventh  year  of  that  monarch's  reign,  and  are  almost  invariably 
arranged  according  to  the  order  of  time.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  de 
termine  why  the  four  chapters  last  named,  belonging  to  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  were  inserted  among  those  pertaining  to  the  reign  of 
Zedekiah.  Perhaps  in  the  judgment  of  the  arranger  the  matter 
which  they  contain  rendered  their  present  position  suitable. 

Chapters  xl-xliv,  treating  of  affairs  subsequent  to  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem,  stand  in  the  right  place.  Chapter  xlv,  containing  words 
of  consolation  for  Baruch,  was  added  as  an  appendage  to  the  proph 
ecies  and  history  respecting  the  Jews.  Though  belonging  to  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  it  was  judged  better  to  put  it  here,  rather 
than  to  omit  it  altogether.  The  prophecies  respecting  foreign  na 
tions  (chaps,  xlvi-li)  are  arranged  together,  and  placed  at  the  end 
of  Jeremiah's  writings,  as  having  no  special  relation  to  the  events  of 
his  times.  Chapter  lii  was  added  as  an  appendix  by  a  later  hand. 

We  have  already  seen  that  in  several  instances  passages  are  found 
in  the  Hebrew  text  that  are  wanting  in  the  LXX.  It  is  not  easy  to 
Differences  be-  explain  this  phenomenon.  It  would,  indeed,  seem  prob- 
d  toe  able  tnat  the  translators  of  the  Hebrew  text  must  have 
had  before  them  a  Hebrew  manuscript,  which  was  some 
what  different  from  our  present  masoretic  text.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  we  are  not  sure  that  they  did  not  take  liberties  with  the  text. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  doubt  that  when  the  canon  was  formed 
by  Nehemiah,  our  present  Hebrew  text  of  Jeremiah  made  a  part  of 
it.  If  it  could  be  supposed  with  any  reason  that  Jeremiah  published 
two  editions  of  his  prophecies,  one  at  Tahpanhes,  in  Egypt,  and  that 
he  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  published  a  second  &&&  enlarged  one, 
the  basis  of  our  present  Hebrew  text,  and  that  the  Greek  version 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  C9a 

was  made  from  the  former  in  Egypt,  the  difficulty  would  be  in  great 
part  removed.  But  even  in  that  case  it  would  seem  singular  that 
uie  translators  should  not  have  obtained  a  Hebrew  manuscript  from 
Jerusalem,  the  seat  of  Jewish  authority  and  learning.  Yet  it  is  in 
the  highest  degree  probable  that  such  manuscripts  as  were  in  au 
thority  at  Jerusalem  were  used  by  Hebrews  in  Egypt  B.  C.  200-150, 
during  which  the  Greek  version  of  Jeremiah  was  probably  made. 

Movers,  and  some  other  critics,  have  a  decided  preference  for  the 
text  of  the  LXX,  which  Bleek,1  upon  the  whole,  favours.  So.  also,  does 
De  Wette  in  the  later  editions  of  his  Introduction.  Havernick  and 
Keil  most  decidedly  prefer  the  Hebrew  text.  Ewald  and  Schrader,' 
while  acknowledging  that  the  Hebrew  text  is,  in  the  main,  the 
more  correct,  yet  think  that  in  some  instances  the  LXX  has  the  bet 
ter  reading. 

For  ourselves,  we  adhere. to  the  Hebrew  text,  from  which  we  see 
no  good  reason  to  depart.  Neither  can  it  be  done  with  safety. 


CHAPTER   L. 

THE    BOOK    OF    THE    PROPHECY    OF    EZEKIEL. 

THE  PERSON  OF  THE   PROPHET. 

Prophet  Ezekiel3  lived  and  prophesied  among  the  Jews  who 
had  been  brought  from  Judea,  in  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin,  by 
Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  and  dispersed  in  different  parts 
of  his  dominions.  He  was  dwelling  in  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans, 
among  the  captive  Jews,  near  the  river  Chebar,4  when,  in  the  fifth 
year  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin,  the  heavens  were  opened  to  him, 
and  he  saw  visions  of  God,  and  the  divine  word  was  communicated 
to  him.  His  prophetic  office  continued  about  twenty-two  years. 
At  least,  his  written  prophecies  extend  over  that  period,  as  we  find 
that  a  divine  communication  was  made  to  him  as  late  as  the  twenty- 
seventh  year  of  the  captivity  (chap,  xxix,  17). 

But  little  is  known  of  his  personal  history.     His  father  was  Buzi, 

J  Emleitung,  p.  489.  *  De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  435. 

1  xHpTn1^,  whom  God  makes  strong. 

'inS,  Chebar,  is,  doubtless,  the  same  as  Ttarj,  Chabor,  in  2  Kings  xvii,  6,  whither 
the  king  of  Assyria  transported  some  of  the  Israelites ;  the  Chaboras  of  the  Greeks 
called  Aborrhas  by  Strabo.  It  is  a  large  river  in  Mesopotamia,  flowing  into  the  Eu 
phrates  at  the  ancient  Circesium  (Carchemish),  the  modern  Kerkesiah.  The  river 
is  now  called  Khabftr.  It  is  about  180  miles  from  Babylon.  Noldeke  and  Schrader 
suppose  Chebar  to  be  a  stream  or  canal  of  the  Euphrates,  not  far  from  Babylon. 


394  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUD\ 

a  priest,  who  is  otherwise  unknown  to  us.  He  was  married,  as  men 
tion  is  made  of  the  death  of  his  wife  (chap,  xxiv,  18),  who  died  in 
the  ninth  year  of  me  captivity.  He  had  a  house  of  his  own  in  the 
land  of  his  captivity  (chaps,  iii,  24  ;  viii,  i).  He  probably  began  his 
prophetic  duties  in  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  age1  (chap,  i,  i).  We 
have  no  account  of  his  death. 

The  book  may  be  divided  into  five  parts.  The  first  (chapters 
i-xxiv)  contains  prophecies  respecting  the  children  of  Israel.  The 
second  (chaps,  xxv-xxxii)  contains  prophecies  xespecting  foreign  na 
tions.  The  third  (chaps,  xxxiii-xxxvii)  embraces  oracles,  principal 
ly  respecting  Israel.  The  fourth  (chaps,  xxxviii,  xxxix) 
Five  divisions.  .  , .  . 

gives   the  predictions  of  the  prophet  against  Gog  and 

Magog.  The  fifth  (chaps,  xl-xlviii)  describes  the  measuring  of  Je 
rusalem  and  the  temple,  the  sacrificial  offerings,  the  divisions  of  the 
land  among  the  different  tribes  of  Israel,  and  kindred  matters,  which 
were  revealed  to  the  prophet  in  vision. 

THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  EZEKIEL. 

The  book  of  this  prophet  is  of  such  a  uniform  and  well-connected 
character,  and  contains  so  many  traces  of  the  age  of  the  prophet, 
that  the  genuineness  of  the  whole  of  it  is  acknowledged  b)  all  critics, 
with  scarcely  an  exception. 

"  Ezekiel's  prominent  peculiarity,"  says  De  Wette,  "is  impressed 
upon  the  book  from  beginning  to  end."  Again  he  remarks:  'That 
Ezekiel,  who  generally  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person,  wrote 
down  every  thing  himself,  is  subject  to  no  doubt ;  he,  nevertheless, 
appears  not  to  have  done  this  until  late.  Even  the  collecting  of  the 
prophecies  can  be  referred  to  him,  especially  as  they  are  arranged 
according  to  a  definite  plan."5  Gesenius  likewise  gives  his  testi 
mony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  whole  book  when  he  says:  "The 
Book  of  Ezekiel  belongs  to  that  not  very  numerous  class  which  from 
De  wette  and  the  beginning  to  the  end  maintain  a  unity  of  tone,  which 
Geseniiis admit  jg  evmce(j  by  favourite  expressions  and  peculiar  phrases  ; 
Ezekiel.  and  by  this,  were  there  nothing  else,  every  suspicion  that 

particular  cccticns  may  be  spurious  ought  to  be  averted."'  The 
learned  sceptical  Jew,  Dr.  Zunz,4  stands  alone  in  calling  in  question 
the  age  of  these  prophecies,  and  in  referring  them  to  a  period  bor- 

1  This  seems  to  us  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  words,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
thirtieth  year,"  the  same  as  in  English,  "  in  my  thirtieth  year,"  expressed  by  the  LXX, 
kv  T$  TpiaKoaT<f)  Irei.  The  supposition  that  some  unknown  era  is  referred  to  from 
which  the  thirtieth  year  is  reckoned,  is  untenable. 

1  De  Wette — Schrader,  pp.  444,  446.  *  In  Keil,  vol.  i,  p.  362. 

4  Gottesdienst.  Vortrage  der  Juden,  pp.  157-162. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  395 

dering  on  the  time  of  the  Persian  Dominion.  Definite  special 
prophecies  are  an  offense  to  him.  As  his  objections  to  the  age  of 
these  prophecies  have  found  no  response,  it  is  unnecessary  to  enter 
into  a  refutation  of  them. 

In  the  arrangement  of  these  prophecies  the  order  of  time  is  ob 
served,  except  in  two  instances,  namely,  the  prophecy  against  Egypt 
in  the  tenth  year  (chap,  xxix,  i),  and  that  against  the  same  land  in 
the  twenty-seventh  year  (chap,  xxix,  17-20).  There  is  no  reason 
whatever  for  supposing  that  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  are  historical 
events  thrown  into  the  prophetic  form.  They  bear  every  mark  of 
being  genuine  prophecies.  "  In  the  person  of  Ezekiel,"  says  Keil, 
"  we  meet  with  a  character  very  decided  and  sharply  marked,  of 
genuine  priestly  turn  of  mind,  with  rich  endowments,  with  uncom 
mon  imagination,  with  imposing  energy,  with  a  noble  creative  imag 
ination,  and  with  powerful,  burning  eloquence."1 

The  language  of  Ezekiel  abounds  in  Chaldaisms,  and  he  is  often 
careless  in  his  grammatical  forms.  His  prophetic  style  and  imagery 
were,  no  doubt,  more  or  less  modified  by  his  new  surroundings  in 
the  land  of  Chaldea.  He  makes  frequent  use  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  in  some  instances  imitates  Jeremiah.3  A  large  part  of  his  proph 
ecies  are  presented  in  visions ;  and  as  he  almost  invariably  gives  the 
date  of  these  wonderful  scenes,  and  the  circumstances  connected 
with  them,  it  is  evident  that  he  intended  that  they  should  be  under 
stood  as  real  events.  We  have  no  reason  to  question  their  truth. 

In  respect  to  the  symbolical  actions  which  the  prophet  in  several 
instances  was  ordered  to  perform,  it  is  probable  that  they  were  really 
performed  by  him  in  an  outward  way,  in  most  cases  as  signs  to  the 
people.  We  cannot  doubt  that  the  death  of  the  wife  of  the  prophet 
was  a  reality,  at  which  the  prophet,  as  a  sign  to  the  people,  was  or 
dered  not  to  weep,  that  they,  too,  should  not  weep  at  the  loss  of  dear 
relatives  (chap,  xxiv,  15-24).  So  the  symbolical  acts  in  chaps,  iv, 
v,  xii,  xxi,  6,  7,  must  be  understood,  in  all  probability,  as  having 
been  performed  in  the  presence  of  Israelites  in  the  captivity.8  **  An 
cient  tradition,"  says  Fiirst,  "  relates  that  the  men  of  the  great  as 
sembly,  i.  e.,  the  great  Council  of  State,  collected,  arranged,  and 
edited  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel.  .  .  .  The  prophecies  had  for  a  long 
time  been  collected,  brought  into  chronological  order,  and  reduced 

Introduction,  vol.  i,  p.  355,  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library. 

"Compare  chap,  xviii,  2  with  Jer.  xxxi,  29 ;  chap,  xxxiii,  7  with  Jer.  vi,  17,  etc. 

1  Bleek  thinks  that  symbolical  acts  were  not  really  performed  by  the  prophet,  as 
they  could  not  have  been  witnessed  by  those  for  whom  they  were  intended.  Ein- 
leitung,  pp.  514,  515.  This  is  not  altogether  true,  for  they  were  witnessed  by  o.part 
of  the  community.  No  symbolical  act  is  ever  witnessed  by  all  the  people  for  whom 
it  is  intended. 


GOG  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

to  a  whole.  More  than  three  hundred  years  passed  away,  during 
Rabbinic viewg  which  Ezekiel  was  regarded  as  a  holy  book,  belonging 
of  Ezekiel.  to  the  national  writings.  Then  it  was  discovered,  upon 
closer  examination,  that  its  legal  contents  in  the  regulations  of  the 
priests  do  not  stand  in  harmony  with  the  arrangements  in  the  Penta 
teuch,  and  it  was  determined  in  the  schools  to  withdraw  the  book, 
as  apocryphal,  from  public  reading.  Then  came  forward  Chanania, 
the  son  of  Hezekiah,  the  son  of  Garon,  a  younger  contemporary  of 
Hillel's,  about  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  devoted  himself  most  indus 
triously  to  the  removal  of  the  difficulty,  until  he  succeeded."  * 


CHAPTER  LI. 

THE     BOOK     OF     DANIEL. 

TN  the  Hebrew  Bible  this  book  stands  in  the  Hagiographa  be- 
^  tween  Esther  and  Ezra.  It  derives  its  name  from  its  author,  Daniel, 
who  is  its  chief  historical  character,  and  whose  prophecies  it  con 
tains.  The  author  was  carried  away  captive  from  Jerusalem  to 
Babylon  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  and  continued 
to  occupy  various  positions  of  honour,  and  to  receive  divine  com 
munications,  until  the  third  year  of  Cyrus  (chap  x,  i),  after  which 
we  hear  no  more  of  him.  The  time  of  his  death  is  uncertain. 

The  book  is  naturally  divided  into  two  parts :  first,  the  historical,  giv 
ing  an  account  of  important  events  at  Babylon  in  the  author's  time 
(chaps,  i-vi) ;  second,  the  prophetical,  containing  prophecies  respect 
ing  future  empires,  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  (chaps,  vii-xii). 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK. 

Eichhorn  held  that  the  book  was  composed  by  two  authors,  one 
of  whom  wrote  chaps,  ii,  4~vi,  and  the  other  chaps,  vii-xii  with  i-ii,  3. 
Berthold  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  different  sections  were  written 
at  different  times  by  nine  authors.  But  the  theory  of  a  plurality  of 
authorship  is  now  universally  abandoned. 

In  chapters  i-vii,  i,  Daniel  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person, 

Unity   of    au-    but  in  tne  rest  of  tlie  DOok  in  tne  first'     The  reason  for 
tLwship.  this  difference  of  persons  is  obvious.     The  first  part  is 

historical,  in  which  it  was  necessary  for  the  author  to  keep  his  sub 
jectivity  out  of  sight,  and  to  consider  himself  as  one  of  the  actors 
1  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  21,  24. 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  897 

tn  the  scene.  In  the  last  six  chapters  he  speaks  of  himself  in  the 
first  person,  because  his  prophecy  is  not  historical.  He  describes 
visions  that  appeared  to  himself  alone.  Here  individuality  and  sub 
jectivity  are  conspicuous,  and  therefore  the  first  person  is  altogether 
appropriate. 

It  is  true  that  the  book  is  written  partly  in  Hebrew,  and  partly  in 
Chaldee,  but  this  does  not  militate  against  unity  of  authorship.  The 
Chaldee  begins  in  chapter  ii,  4,  with  the  address  that  the  Chaldeans 
make  to  the  king,  and  ends  with  chapter  vii.  But  the  first  person 
is  used  in  this  seventh  (Chaldee)  chapter  and  in  the  remaining  chap 
ters,  which  are  Hebrew.  It  is  extremely  improbable  that  a  second 
author,  in  taking  up  the  first  six  chapters  of  the  first  part,  should  add 
an  additional  chapter  in  Chaldee,  and  then  finish  the  book  in  He 
brew.  The  second  part  of  the  book  is,  to  a  great  extent,  an  en 
largement  of  some  of  the  prophecies  in  the  first,  and  refers  to  them. 
The  character  of  Daniel  is  the  same  throughout  the  whole  book. 

THE   GENUINENESS  OF  THE   BOOK. 

It  was  the  universal  belief  of  the  ancient  Jewish  and  Christian 
Churches  that  the  book  was  written  by  Daniel,  who  lived  during  the 
captivity  at  Babylon.  Porphyry,  a  heathen  philosopher  belonging 
to  the  school  of  the  New-Platonists  (f  about  A.  D.  305),  devoted 
the  whole  of  the  twelfth  book  of  his  fifteen  against  Christianity,  in 
the  attempt  to  show  that  this  book  is  spurious,  and  that  it  was  writ 
ten  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (B.  C.  175-164).  Jerome 
remarks  on  Porphyry,  that  he  asserted  that  the  author  of  the  book 
"did  not  so  much  predict  the  future  as  narrate  the  past;  that  what 
ever  he  said  up  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  contained  true 
history,  but  that  his  statements  in  reference  to  affairs  beyond  that 
period,  because  he  was  ignorant  of  the  future,  are  false.  Eusebius, 
bishop  of  Cesarca,  in  three  books,  Apollinarius,  also,  in  one  large 
book,  and  before  these,  in  part,  Methodius,  have  answered  him  in 
a  very  ingenious  manner."1 

From  the  time  of  Porphyry  we  hear  of  no  objections  to  the  genu 
ineness  of  the  book  until  Spinoza,  a  Dutch  Jew  of  the  Tbe  objectiong 
seventeenth  century,  gave  expression  to  a  suspicion  that  of  Spinoza  and 
a  writer  later  than  Daniel  wrote  the  first  seven  chapters  c 
from  the  Chaldean  annals.  In  the  first  part  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury  a  violent  and  elaborate  attack  was  made  on  the  genuineness  of 
the  book  by  Anthony  Collins,8  an  English  Deist.  In  the  latter  part 

1  Preface  to  his  Commentary  on  Daniel. 

*  In  The  Scheme  of  Literal  Prophecy  Considered.  London,  1727.  See  Leland's 
View  of  Deistical  Writers,  vol.  i,  p.  123. 


393  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

of  the  same  century  the  book  was  attacked  by  Corrodi,  in  which  ht 
was  followed  by  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century.  These  attacks  have  been  continued  by  De  Wette, 
Bleek,  Ewald,  Lengerke,  Hitzig,  Bunsen,  Davidson,1  and  others.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  been  vigorously  defended  by  Hengstenberg, 
Havernick,  Herbst,  Keil,  Delitzsch,  Auberlen,  Stuart,  and  others. 

THE   EXISTENCE,  AGE,  AND    COUNTRY   OF    DANIEL. 

Before  discussing  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  it  is  proper  to 
inquire  into  the  existence,  age,  and  country  of  Daniel.  And  here  we 
must  observe  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  supposing 
that  Daniel  is  a  mythical  or  poetical  character.  If  a  book  is  forged 
in  the  name  of  a  person,  it  shows  that  at  the  time  of  the  forgery  not 
only  was  there  no  doubt  of  the  existence  of  that  person,  but  also  that 
he  was  a  man  of  great  reputation.  Otherwise,  there  would  be  no 
object  in  assuming  his  name.  And  to  ascribe  to  him  a  different 
character,  or  to  locate  him  in  a  country  or  in  an  age  different  from 
what  tradition  assigned  him,  would  render  the  reception  of  the  book 
quite  impossible. 

We  need  not,  however,  rely  wholly  upon  an  a  priori  argument  in 
proof  of  his  existence  and  reputation,  for  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  who 
lived  in  the  first  part  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  refers  to  him  in 
the  following  passages :  "  Though  these  three  men,  Noah,  Daniel, 
and  Job,  were  in  it,  they  should  deliver  but  their  own  souls  by  their 
righteousness,  saith  the  Lord  God  "  (Ezek.  xiv,  14).  Again  he  says 
Ezekiei's  refer-  (verse  20) :  "Though  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,  were  in  it," 
ence  to  Daniel.  etc>  The  placing  of  Daniel  along  with  Noah  and  Job 
would  indicate  that  he  lived  in  a  time  of  great  trial,  and  was  dis 
tinguished  for  fidelity  and  righteousness,  as  were  Noah  and  Job. 
There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  in  the  order  of  their  names 
there  is  necessarily  a  reference  to  the  order  of  time  in  which  they 
lived.  It  was  natural  that  Noah,  their  ancestor,  distinguished  for 
righteousness,  should  stand  first.  Daniel  stands  next,  not  because 
he  preceded  Job  in  time,  but  because  he  was  Ezekiei's  own  country 
man  ;  and  Job  was  put  last  because  he  was  a  foreigner.  In  Ezekiel 
xxviii,  3,  in  the  midst  of  a  long  prophecy  against  Tyre,  the  following 
occurs  :  "  Behold,  thou  art  wiser  than  Daniel;  there  is  no  secret  that 
they  can  hide  from  thee."  When  Ezekiel  used  this  language,  Dan 
iel,  according  to  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  had  been  already  in 
Babylon  eighteen  years,  and  had  obtained  the  highest  celebrity.  His 
fame  may  have  reached  to  Tyre  when  Ezekiel  made  the  references ; 
but  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  indicating,  in  the  slightest  de- 
*In  Introduction,  1863. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  390 

gree,  that  Daniel  was  known  in  Tyre.  Nor  does  the  allusion  require 
it.  as  Ezekiel  did  not  read  his  prophecy  in  that  city ;  at  all  events, 
the  fame  of  Daniel  would  reach  that  city  as  soon  as  the  prophecy 
would.  Further,  there  was  appropriateness  in  comparing  the  wis 
dom  of  Tyre  with  that  of  some  living  person.  At  the  time  when 
Ezekiel  spoke  of  the  righteousness  of  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,  Daniel 
had  been  already  in  Babylon  twelve  years,  and  had  become  renowned 
for  piety  and  wisdom.  The  passages  cited  from  Ezekiel  show  that 
Daniel  was  a  man  of  great  piety  and  wisdom,  and  well  known  to 
Ezekiel's  contemporaries.  Now,  if  Daniel  did  not  live  during  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  to  what  period  can  we  assign  his  history  ?  We 
have  a  connected  history  of  the  Jews  from  the  calling  of  Abraham 
to  the  captivity  at  Babylon,  and  there  is  nowhere  mentioned  a  man 
of  any  eminence  by  the  name  of  Daniel;  he  must,  therefore,  have 
lived  during  the  captivity.  Ewald  and  Bunsen,  however,  suppose  that 
the  Daniel  mentioned  by  Ezekiel  was,  perhaps,  a  descendant  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  who  lived  at  the  heathen  court  in  Nin 
eveh,  and  to  whom  prophecies  respecting  the  kingdoms  of  the  world 
were  attributed  in  a  book  written  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
or  soon  afterwards;  and  that  this  book  was  used  by  the  author  of  the 
present  Book  of  Daniel.  Bleek  justly  rejects  such  a  view  as  un 
grounded  and  improbable,  and  as  increasing  the  difficulty  of  explain 
ing  the  origin  of  the  book  far  more  than  diminishing  it.1  But  Bleek's 
own  hypothesis  is  just  as  improbable.  He  supposes  that  Bieek'shypoth- 
"Ezekiel  was  acquainted  with  an  older  writing  which  esls< 
treated  of  a  Daniel  as  a  man  distinguished  by  legal  piety  and  deep 
wisdom,  but  in  such  a  way  that  nothing  definite  appeared  respecting 
the  age  in  which  he  lived.  This  book  was,  perhaps,  lost  at  an  early 
period,  during  the  Babylonian  captivity  or  immediately  afterwards ; 
at  least,  it  was  no  longer  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  composition 
of  our  Book  of  Daniel,  [which  Bleek  thinks  was  written  about  B.  C. 
165]  ;  and  thus  nothing  more  definite  than  what  was  afforded  by  the 
passages  in  Ezekiel  was  known  to  the  author  of  our  book  and  his 
contemppraries."'  He  thinks  this  left  the  author  of  the  book  what 
we  may  call  a  carte  blanche,  on  which  he  could  write  whatever  suited 
his  purposes  respecting  Daniel. 

But  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that,  if  there  had  exist 
ed  among  the  Hebrews  prior  to  the  captivity  a  man  so  distinguished 
as  Ezekiel  represents  Daniel  to  be,  there  would  have  been  no  men 
tion  made  of  him  in  the  historical  books  treating  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Jews  before  the  captivity.  Nor  is  it  probable  that,  if  the  biography 
of  such  a  man  had  been  written,  it  would  have  been  lost,  as  that 
'Einleitung,  p.  613.  "Ibid.,  p.  612. 


400  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

biography  was  the  only  history  of  the  man.  Memoirs  and  biog 
raphies  in  Jewish  history  were  lost  because  the  substance  of  them 
was  incorporated  into  permanent  historical  works,  or  because  they 
were  of  but  little  importance.  Bleek  acknowledges  that  the  most 
of  those  learned  men  who  refer  the  composition  of  the  book  to  a 
later  age,  and  do  not  accept  its  statements  of  particulars,  assume 
that  Daniel  and  his  three  companions  were  historical  persons,  who 
distinguished  themselves  through  piety  and  wisdom  in  Babylon,  and 
obtained  favour  and  consideration  with  the  rulers  of  the  land.1 

There  is  a  Daniel  mentioned  in  Ezra  viii,  2 ;  and  in  Nehemiah  x 
he  is  named  with  Hananiah  and  Azariah,  though  they  do  not  stand 
together.  In  Nehemiah  viii,  4  Mishael  occurs.  But  in  Nehemiah  x 
we  have  Jeremiah,  and  Baruch,  and  Anathoth  (which  was  also  the 
name  of  the  town  where  Jeremiah  lived).  The  occurrence  of  the 
names  of  Jeremiah,  and  Baruch  his  secretary,  and  Anathoth,  is  just  as 
singular  as  that  of  Daniel  and  two  of  his  companions.  But,  in  fact, 
there  is  nothing  remarkable  in  it.  For  Nehemiah  x  contains  more 
than  eighty  names,  among  which  there  is  no  improbability  that  the 
names  of  Daniel  and  some  of  his  friends  would  be  found.  It  is  very 
probable,  indeed,  that  a  considerable  number  of  persons  would  be 
named  after  Daniel  and  his  companions,  who  were  so  distinguished 
in  Babylon.  The  suspicion  of  Bleek  is  utterly  groundless,  that  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  borrowed  the  names  of  Daniel  and  his 
companions — who  lived  more  than  a  hundred  years  earlier — from 
the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  And  Davidson  supposes  that 
the  author  of  Daniel  had  learned  some  particulars  about  these  four 
persons,  who  returned  from  Babylon  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehe 
miah.  Not  only  did  the  ancient  Jewish  rabbies  never  doubt  the 
existence  of  Daniel,  but  they  compared  him  even  to  Moses.2 

Before  presenting  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  book,  we  shall  consider  the 

OBJECTIONS    TO    ITS    GENUINENESS. 
I.    ITS  POSITION  IN  THE   CANON. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  does  not  stand  in  the  third  division  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  embracing  the  later  prophets,  but  in  \hzfourth  divis- 
ion,  the  Hagiographa,  in  which  it  forms  the  ninth  book,  and  stands 
between  Esther  and  Ezra.  Now,  the  opponents  of  its  genuineness 
hold  that  if  the  book  had  been  written  when  the  later  prophets  were 
arranged,  it  would  have  been  placed  along  with  them  in  the  third 

1  Einleitung,  p.  611.     Davidson  regards  Daniel  as  "  partly  historical" 
'  Fiirst.  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  103. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  401 

division  of  the  sacred  canon,  and  not  in  tne  fourth ;  and  its  position, 
therefore,  must  be  owing  to  the  lateness  of  its  composition. 

But  here  the  question  arises,  whether  the  arrangement  of  the 
books  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  is  the  same  now  that  it  was  when  the 
canon  was  originally  formed  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  or  possibly 
soon  after.  We  must  answer  this  question  in  the  negative.  For 
example— in  the  time  of  Jerome  the  Book  of  Ruth  was  placed  im 
mediately  after  the  Judges,  and  the  Lamentations  were  joined  to 
Jeremiah,  though  both  of  these  books  now  stand  in  the  Hagiographa, 
which  is  the  third  division.  Jerome,  however,  adds,  that  some  put 
them  among  the  Hagiographa.  In  the  time  of  Jerome  the  Hagiog 
rapha  began  with  the  Book  of  Job  and  ended  with  Esther ;  now  it 
begins  with  Psalms  and  ends  with  Chronicles.  In  the  time  of  Origen 
(first  half  of  the  third  century)  Ruth  was  joined  to  Judges,  and 
Lamentations  to  Jeremiah,  and  Daniel  stood  between  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel.  Origen  gives  the  books,  he  tells  us,  according  to  the 
Hebrews.1 

Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  who  flourished  in  the  last  half  of  the 
;cond  century,  tells  us  that  he  went  to  the  East,  where  the  history 
in  the  Old  Testament  was  transacted,  and  that  he  carefully  ascer- 
tined  the  number  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  order 
which   they  were  arranged.     In  this  catalogue  he  places  Daniel 
>etween  the  minor  prophets  and  Ezekiel. a 

Josephus  3  distributes  the  sacred  books  into  three  divisions  :  the 
7ive  Books  of  Moses;  the  writings  of  the  Prophets,  in  thirteen  books; 
\nd  the  remaining  four  (of  the  twenty-two),  containing  praises  to  God 
nd  the  practical  duties  of  men.     It  is  evident,  then,  that  in  his  time 
Book  of  Daniel  stood  among  the  Prophets.     And  this  is  confirmed 
>y  Josephus'  calling  him  Daniel  the  Prophet*     Daniel  is  also  called  a 
Prophet  in  Matt,  xxiv,  15,  which  may  be  considered,  at  least,  a  proof 
that  he  was  so  regarded  by  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ.     It  would 
,  then,  to  be  quite  certain  that  in  the  interval  between  Josephus 
[who  died  about  A.  D.  100)  and  Jerome  (born  about  A.  D.  345),  the 
learned  rabbies  of  the  school  of  Tiberias  re-arranged  the  books  of 
ic  canon,  and  removed  Daniel  from  the  second  division  (of  the 
'rophets)  and  put  him  into  the  Hagiographa.     Accordingly,  in  the 
'almudic  tradition,6  the  visions  of  Daniel  are  not  regarded  as  proph- 
'ies,  and  in  the  Midrasch  it  is  said  "  Daniel  was  no  prophet,  but 
me  who  saw  visions  and  revelations."     At  the  same  time  rabbinical 
tradition6  declared  that  "  respecting  the  seventy  year-weeks,  the  ful- 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  25.  *  Ibid.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  26. 

"Against  Apion,  i,  8.  *  Antiq.,  book,  x,  n,  - 

8  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  101.  *  Ibid.,  p.  104. 
VOL.  I.— 26 


402  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

filment  of  the  ancient  prophecies  concerning  the  end  of  time,  and 
other  things,  he  erred,  and  effected  nothing." 

The  rejection  of  the  Messiah  by  the  Jews  led  them  to  declare  the 
seventy  year-weeks  of  Daniel,  which  were  to  end  with  the  cutting 
off  of  the  Messiah,  as  unfulfilled,  and  that  Daniel  had  made  a  mis 
take.  It  is  not  strange,  under  these  circumstances,  that  they  de 
graded  Daniel  from  the  prophetic  rank,  and  put  his  book  into  the 
Hagiographa. 

But  suppose  the  book  had  been  written  in  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  (about  B.  C.  165),  and  received  by  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin 
as  a  genuine  work  of  Daniel,  they  would  have  immediately  inserted  it 
with  the  other  prophets,  as  belonging  to  them,  if  they  regarded  Daniel 
as  a  real  prophet.  But  if  Daniel  was  not  regarded  by  the  arrangers 
of  the  canon  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  as  a  prophet  in  the  sense  in 
which  they  held  the  prophets  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  they  would, 
probably,  have  put  it  into  the  Hagiographa,  though  acknowledging 
the  book  to  be  genuine.  But  if  Daniel  had  been  written  in  the  time 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  it  could  not  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Hagiographa,  for  that  division  was  already  closed. 

2.    ALLEGED    GREEK    WORDS    IN    DANIEL. 

In  chap,  iii,  5  *  occur  the  following  names  of  musical  instruments, 
which  are  alleged  to  be  of  Greek  origin  :  Diivp,  qaythros;  JO3D,  sabbeka; 
\*~\T\*ZS,pesanterin  ;  rVJ3£UD,  sumponeyah.  On  the  hypothesis  of  their 
Greek  origin,  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book  allege 
that  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity  it  is  unlikely  that  mu 
sical  instruments  with  Greek  names  were  found  in  Babylon  ;  and 
consequently  that  the  book  must  be  referred  to  a  period  subsequent 
to  Alexander  the  Great,  when  Grecian  learning  was  widely  diffused 
in  the  East. 

The  word  D*flvp  is  generally  regarded  as  the  Greek  «n9ap/f  (or  Kitid- 

pa),  cithara,  or  harp,  which  was  in  use  at  a  very  early  period  among  the 
Greeks,  and  is  found  as  the  name  of  a  musical  instrument  in  Homer. 
It  is  very  probably  Greek,  although  Strabo  represents  some  one  as 
saying,  "beating  the  Asiatic  cithara"'4 

*O3D  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  from  the  Greek  aafjifSvurj,  but  with 
out  reason.  Ftirst  remarks  that  the  word  is  "  from  the  Aramaean,  as 
a  Syrian  invented  it "  (Heb.  Lex).  Liddell  and  Scott  remark  on 
the  Greek  word  aafi^vKi] :  "  of  barbarian  origin,  being,  in  fact,  the 
Syrian  sabka  with  m  inserted,  as  in  ambubaia  (from  Syriac  abdbo,  a 
pipe}"  Gesenius  offers  no  objection  to  its  Oriental  origin  (Heb. 
1  In  verses  7  and  10  occurs  the  same  list  *  Lib.  x,  471- 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  403 

Lex.).  Strabo  '  speaks  of  the  word  as  of  foreign  (i.  e.,  Oriental)  origin. 
The  next  word,  pnJDS,  has  been  generally  supposed  to  be  derived 
from  the  Greek  ipaA,T7)piov,  by  changing  the  Greek  A  into  the  He 
brew  J.  Our  translators  render  it  psaltery.  Pusey  remarks  :  "  The 
psaltery,  as  described  by  St.  Augustine,  corresponds  with  the  *  san- 
lour/  as  recognized  by  Layard  on  the  bass-relief  of  Babylon."  The 
word  in  Daniel  and  this  "  santour  "  were  both  probably  derived  from 
the  Greek  t/jaA-njptov.  The  last  of  these  four  words,  rrJDDto,  is  gen 
erally  supposed  to  be  from  the  Greek  cn^owa,  symphony,  used  in 
Plato  in  the  sense  of  musical  concord,  and  in  Aristotle  for  music,  and 
in  the  same  sense  in  Luke  xv,  25.  In  Polybius  (who  died  about 
B.  C.  122)  the  word  is  used,  in  all  probability,  for  a  concert  of  mu 
sicians,  in  liber  xxxi,  4.  In  the  same  author,  liber  xxvi,  10,  the 
word  also  occurs,  but  whether  in  the  sense  of  a  band  of  music  or  an 
instrument  it  is  not  easy  to  determine.  This  latter  passage,  how 
ever,  belongs  to  a  lost  book,  and  is  taken  from  a  late  writer  who 
gives  the  substance  of  the  remarks  of  Polybius  on  the  conduct  of  a 
certain  individual.  The  fact  that  Luke  uses  it  for  music  in  gen 
eral,  or  a  concert  of  musicians,  renders  it  extremely  improbable,  in 
connexion  with  other  facts,  that  the  word  was  used  by  the  ancients 
for  a  musical  instrument  until  some  centuries  after  Christ.  The 
form  symphonia  occurs  in  late  Latin. 

Gesenius  regards  the  word  as  of  Greek  origin ;  but  Fiirst  (Heb. 
Lex.)  gives  the  definition,  Aram,  fern.,  a  double  pipe,  a  bag-pipe.  As 
the  Greeks,  says  he,  themselves  did  not  name  the  instrument  so  (crv/i- 
06w'a),  it  may  perhaps  be  Semitic,  and  come  from  |3D,  a  bag,  Talm., 
|3DD,  a  reed.  Or  it  may  come,  also,  from  ^D,  reed.  '  Bonomi3  ex 
presses  the  conviction  that  the  word  under  discussion  is  a  genuine 
Chaldee  word,  which  he  derives  from  "p:>,  to  lay,  or  lean. 

There  are,  then,  but  two  or  three  words  at  most  that  can,  with  any 
probability,  be  referred  to  a  Greek  origin.  Nor  is  it  creek  names 

surprising  that  there  should  be  found  at  Babylon  two  or  for  musical  tn- 
.         .  .  struments     in 

three  musical  instruments  bearing  Greek  names  as  early  Babylon. 

as  about  six  hundred  years  before  Christ ;  for  the  Greeks  at  a  very 
early  period  displayed  their  inventive  genius  in  music,  as  well  as  in 
other  departments,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  how  their  instruments  of  mu 
sic  might  find  their  way  to  Babylon. 

"Long  before  the  Greeks  began  to  write  history,"  says  Brandis 

"  they  had,  as  friends  and  foes,  come  into  manifold  contact  with  the 

empire  of  the  Assyrians.  .  .  .  The  battle  and  victory  of  Sennacherib 

in  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  over  a  Greek  army  which  had  penetrated 

1  Lib.  x,  471.  •  Nineveh  and  its  Palaces,  p.  408. 


104  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

into  Cilicia  is  fully  attested  by  a  relation  out  of  the  Babylonian  history 
of  Berosus.  On  the  other  hand,  the  extensive  commerce  of  Greek 
colonies  must  not  unfrequently  have  led  Greek  merchants  into  As 
syrian  territory."  '  "  The  name  of  Javan,  or  Greece,  occurs  in  the  in 
scriptions  of  Sargon  [B.  C.  722-705]  among  those  from  whom  he 
received  tribute.  We  know  that  articles  of  luxury  formed  part  of 
the  tribute  to  Assyria."5  "In  the  monuments  even  of  Sennacherib 
'the  Assyrian  generals,'  says  Layard,  are  represented  '  as  welcomed 
by  bands  of  men  and  women,  dancing,  singing,  and  playing  upon  in 
struments  of  music.  First  came  five  men  ;  three  carried  harps  of 
many  strings,  which  they  struck  with  both  hands ;  a  fourth  played 
on  the  double  pipes,  such  as  are  seen  on  the  monuments  of  Egypt, 
and  were  used  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  .  .  .  The  fifth  musician 
carried  an  instrument  not  unlike  the  modern  santour  of  the  East.' " 

Bonomi4  gives  various  cuts  representing  the  musical  instruments 
of  the  Ninevites,  and  compares  them  with  those  mentioned  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel.  He  derives  the  names  of  the  latter  wholly  from  the 
Semitic  language. 

De  Wette  acknowledges  that,  "  of  course,  it  is  possible  that  Greek 
instruments  and  their  names  could  be  known  to  the  Babylonians."1 
And  Rosenmliller  remarks :  "  Nothing  prevents  musical  instru 
ments  invented  by  the  Greeks  having  been  used  among  the  Baby 
lonians."  ' 

In  Genesis,  in  several  places,  there  occurs  the  word  wh^,pillegesh, 

Greek  words  in  a  concubine,  which,  in  all  probability,  was  derived  from 
Genesis.  ^e  Qreg^  TraAAoKj'c,  7raAAa«7y,  7rdAAa£,  as  Fiirst  believes, 

and  which  Gesenius  thinks  may  be  true,  as  there  is  no  word  in  the 
Semitic  from  which  to  derive  it.  In  Genesis  xv,  17,  we  have  T31?, 
lappid,  a  torch,  equivalent  to  the  Greek  Aa/i7rdf.  There  is  no  verb 
in  the  Hebrew  language  from  which  to  derive  TD1?,  and  it  has  but 
one  cognate  word.  But  the  Greek  Aa/Z7rdc,  Aa/zTracfof,  a  lamp,  from 
Aa/iTrw,  to  shine,  has  a  great  number  of  cognate  words,  showing  that 
the  Greek  is  the  primitive,  and  the  Hebrew  word  the  derived,  not 
vice  versa,  as  Gesenius  and  Fiirst  think. 

Now,  will  any  one  contend  that,  on  account  of  one  or  two  Greek 
words  in  Genesis,  this  book  was  not  composed  until  long  after  the 
Babylonian  captivity?  Some  think  the  word  St3"iJ«  (Ezra  i,  9) 
comes  from  the  Greek  /cdpraAAof.  If  this  could  be  established, 
would  it  prove  that  Ezra  was  not  written  until  after  the  time  of  Alex 
ander  the  Great  ?  Why,  then,  should  two  or  three  Greek  words  in 

1  In  Pusey  on  Daniel,  p.  31.  *  Ibid.,  p.  32.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  32,  33- 

4  Nineveh  and  its  Palaces,  London,  1857,  pp.  405-409. 

6  Fourth  edition  of  his  Einleit.  •  Scholia  in  Daniel. 


OF  THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  405 

Daniel,  the  names  of  musical  instruments,  which  would  travel  with 
the  instruments  themselves,  be  thought  to  indicate  that  the  book 
was  written  long  after  the  Babylonian  captivity  ?  There  is  no  Greek 
colouring  in  the  book,  as  we  might  have  expected  had  it  been  writ 
ten  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 

3.    THE   SILENCE   OF  JESUS   SIRACH. 

The  omission  of  Daniel  in  the  list  of  the  great  men  among  the 
Jews  (chaps,  xliv-1)  given  by  the  son  of  Sirach,  has  been  urged  by 
some  as  an  argument  against  the  Book  of  Daniel  being  known  to 
him.  But  the  argument  a  silentio  is  in  many  cases  very  delusive. 
If  applied  either  to  sacred  or  profane  history,  it  often  leads  to  the 
most  fallacious  results.  If  a  writer  professes  to  give  a  catalogue  of 
all  the  men  who  have  distinguished  themselves  in  any  particular 
department,  then  the  omission  of  any  distinguished  name  in  that  de 
partment  may  be  considered  as  &  probable  proof  that,  in  the  judg 
ment  of  the  writer,  no  such  character  existed.  It  would  not  be  a 
positive  proof,  at  all  events,  for  there  might  be  a  lapse  of  memory 
only.  But  this  is  not  the  case  here,  for  the  son  of  Sirach  does  not 
profess  to  give  a  list  of  all  the  distinguished  men  of  Israel.  He  be 
gins  in  the  following  manner :  "  Let  us  praise  distinguished  men, 
even  our  fathers  in  their  generation  "  (chap,  xliv,  i).  Enoch  is  the 
first  name  in  his  list.  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  Moses, 
Joshua,  and  a  few  others  of  the  early  ages,  follow.  He  altogether 
omits  Jephthah,  Gideon,  and  Samson,  all  of  whom  were  distinguished 
men.  He  makes  no  mention  of  such  later  eminent  Jews  as  Ezra  or 
Mordecai,  and  passes  over  Esther  in  silence,  while  he  gives  us 
Zorobabcl  and  Nehemiah.  The  remark  of  Bleek,  that  Ezra,  per 
haps,  would  not  have  been  passed  over  if  his  book  at  that  time 
(about  B.  C.  200-180)  had  formed  a  part  of  the  canon,  is  entirely 
groundless,  as  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Book  of  Ezra  was 
already  in  the  canon,  and  that  its  author  stood  high.  Omisslon  b 
The  history  of  Mordecai  and  Esther  must  have  been  the  son  of 
well  known  to  the  son  of  Sirach.  In  chap,  xlix,  10,  the 
son  of  Sirach  mentions  the  twelve  (minor)  prophets.  Bretschneider, 
Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  some  others,  regard  this  passage  as 
spurious.  The  passage  certainly  interrupts  the  connexion,  and 
makes  the  construction  difficult.  But  we  do  not  feel  authorized  to 
pronounce  it  spurious.  The  son  of  Sirach,  before  he  finishes  his 
list,  goes  back,  and  takes  up  Enoch  again,  and  adds  to  his  list  Shem, 
Seth,  and  Adam.  The  reason  assigned  by  some  for  the  omission  of 
Daniel  is,  that  he  lived  at  the  Babylonian  court,  and  did  not  labour 
among  the  Jewish  people. 


406  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

But,  further,  some  of  the  men  in  the  list  of  the  son  of  Sirach  nevei 
wrote  anything.  It  is  not  their  books  that  he  is  praising,  but  theii 
deeds.  If  Daniel  was  a  man  of  any  eminence  he  could  with  pro 
priety  have  been  placed  in  the  catalogue  though  he  had  left  no 
writings.  The  omission  of  his  name,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  the 
son  of  Sirach,  proves  that  no  such  character  ever  existed  (if  it  proves 
anything),  in  clear  contradiction  to  Ezekiel.  Suppose  the  son  of 
Sirach  had  praised  Daniel  without  naming  his  book;  this  would 
have  been  another  testimony  to  his  existence  and  character  only — 
not  a  confirmation  of  the  genuineness  of  his  book. 

4.    ALLEGED   HISTORICAL   ERRORS. 

It  is  contended  by  the  impugners  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book 
that  it  contains  historical  errors.  If  this  charge  were  true,  we  are 
not  sure  that  it  would  prove  the  spuriousness  of  the  book,  though 
it  would  prove  that  the  author  was  not  in  every  thing  inspired,  and 
did  not  possess  accurate  knowledge  on  all  the  points  of  the  history 
which  he  wrote.  We  shall,  however,  show  that  thf  charge  of  his 
torical  errors  is  unfounded.  In  Dan.  i,  i,  2  we  read,  "In  the  third 
year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  came  Nebuchadnezzar 
king  of  Babylon  unto  Jerusalem,  and  besieged  it.  And  the  Lord 
gave  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  into  his  hand."  In  Jer.  xxv,  i  we 
read,  "  The  word  that  came  to  Jeremiah  concerning  all  the  people 
of  Judah,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  .  .  .  that  was  the  first 
year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon."  According  to  the  latter 
passage,  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  corresponds,  in  part  at 
least,  with  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim ;  and  yet  in  the  third  year 
of  Jehoiakim  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  king  in  our  book,  evidently 
before  he  had  mounted  the  throne.  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and 
Stuart  pursue  nearly  the  same  method  in  removing  the  discrepancy; 
and,  as  it  seems  to  us  quite  satisfactory,  we  will  adopt  it.  Berosus, 
the  Chaldean  historian  (quoted  by  Josephus,  lib.  x,  cap.  xi),  states 
that  when  Nebuchadnezzar's  father,  Nabuchodonosor,  [Nabopollas- 
sar],  heard  that  the  governor  whom  he  had  set  over  Egypt  and  the 
places  about  Ccele-Syria  and  Phoenicia  had  revolted  from  him,  he 
committed  to  Nebuchadnezzar  his  son  some  parts  of  his  army,  and 
sent  them  against  him.  Nebuchadnezzar  gave  him  battle,  defeated 
him,  and  recovered  the  country  from  under  his  subjection,  and  made 
it  a  branch  of  his  kingdom.  About  this  time  Nebuchadnezzar  heard 
that  his  father  was  dead,  and,  having  settled  the  affairs  of  Egypt  and 
the  other  countries,  as  also  those  that  concerned  the  captive  Jews 
and  Phoenicians,  and  those  of  the  Egyptian  nations,  and  having  com 
mitted  the  conveyance  of  them  to  Babylon  to  certain  of  his  friends. 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  407 

he  went  himself  hastily  with  a  few  others  over  the  desert  to  Babylon, 
So  he  took  upon  him  the  management  of  public  affairs,  and  of  the 
kingdom,  which  had  been  kept  for  him  by  one  that  was  principal  of 
the  Chaldeans,  and  he  received  the  entire  dominions  of  his  father, 
and  appointed  that,  when  the  captives  came,  they  should  be  placed 
as  colonies  in  the  most  proper  places  of  Babylonia.1  The  begin 
ning  of  this  expedition  was  probably  in  the  end  of  the  third  year  oi 
Jehoiakim  (the  same  as  Dan.  i,  i).  In  Jer.  xlvi,  2  it  is  stated  that 
Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  smote  the  army 
of  Pharaoh-necho,  king  of  Egypt,  which  was  by  the  river  Euphrates, 
in  Carchemish.  We  may  suppose  that  some  months  intervened  be 
tween  the  setting  out  of  the  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the 
defeat  of  the  Egyptian  army  at  Carchemish.  Now,  since  Jehoiakim 
had  been  set  on  the  throne  by  the  king  of  Egypt,  there  is  nothing 
improbable  in  the  supposition  that  before  attacking  the  Egyptian 
army  at  Carchemish  he  besieged  Jerusalem  and  carried  away  cap 
tives  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  This  must  have  been  one  or 
two  years  before  he  became  king.  And  Berosus  makes  mention  of 
conquests  made  in  Syria,  and  Jews  taken  captive  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
before  he  became  king,  which  confirms  the  date  in  Dan.  i,  i.  The 
remark  of  Bleek3  is  entirely  false,  that,  according  to  Jer.  xxxvi,  9,  29, 
in  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  Chaldeans  had  not  yet  come  to 
Jerusalem.  For  in  verse  29  the  reference  to  the  coming  of  the 
king  of  Babylon  is  not  to  his  first  appearance  in  Jerusalem,  when 
Jehoiakim  submitted  to  him,  but  to  his  entire  overthrow  of  the 
country:  "The  king  of  Babylon  shall  certainly  come  and  destroy  tJm 
land,  and  shall  cause  to  cease  from  thence  man  and  beast''  This  refers 
to  the  reigns  of  Jehoiachin  and  Zedekiah.  It  is  not  strange  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  king  in  the  lifetime  of  his  father.  He  may 
have  been  a  co-regent  with  him ;  but  even  if  he  were  not,  the  title  of 
king  could  have  been  given  to  him  by  anticipation.  We  can  speak 
of  General  Washington's  accompanying  Braddock  in  his  expedition 
to  Fort  Du  Quesne,  though  in  fact  he  had  not  then  attained  the  rank 
of  general.  In  the  same  way  we  could  speak  of  President  Grant's 
campaign  in  the  Wilderness. 

And  thus  arises  the  apparent  contradiction  between  Dan.  ii,  i 
and  i,  5,  18.  In  the  first  of  these  passages  it  is  stated  that  the  dream 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  which  Daniel  interpreted  occurred  in  the  second* 
year  of  the  reign  of  that  monarch.  But  according  to  the  other  pas 
sages  Daniel  was  not  brought  in  to  appear  before  the  king  till  the 

1  This  is  the  substance  of  the  passage.  We  have  omitted  some  words  not  relevant 
to  our  purpose.  *  Einleitung,  p.  601. 

*  Ewald  supposes  we  should  read  twelfth  instead  of  second. 


408  INTRODUCTION    TO   TILL    STUDY 

end  of  three  years.     As  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  king  in  chap,  i,  i 
by  way  of  anticipation,  the  three  years  of  Daniel's  preparation  to 
appear  before  the  king  begin  one  or  two  years  before  the  full  sover 
eignty  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

In  Dan.  v,  31,  after  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  it  is  stated  that 
Darius  the  Median  took  the  kingdom  when  he  was  about  threescore 
and  two  years  old.  Some  have  denied  the  existence  of  such  a  mon 
arch.  But  Gesenius  well  remarks  on  this  monarch :  "  This  was  ap 
parently  Cyaxares  II.,  the  son  and  successor  of  Astyages,  and  uncle 
of  Cyrus,  who  held  the  empire  of  Media  between  Astyages  and 
Cyrus,  yet  so  that  Cyrus  was  his  colleague  and  viceroy;  on  which 
proof  of  exist-  account  he  alone  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus  "  (Heb. 
ence  of  Darius.  Lex.).  Xenophon  *  represents  Cyaxares  as  succeeding 
Astyages.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  this  king  is  a  fic 
tion  of  Xenophon.  The  passage  in  ^Eschylus  (Persse,  765-768)  con 
tains  no  probable  reference  to  Darius. 

Herodotus,  Ctesias,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Strabo,  and  Polyaenus,  know 
nothing  of  a  king  between  Astyages  and  Cyrus.  But,  if  the  book 
of  Daniel  be  genuine — and,  in  discussing  this  subject,  no  one  has  a 
right  to  assume  the  contrary — his  testimony  is  worth  more  than  all 
these  historians  put  together;  and  that  he  possessed  accurate  knowl 
edge  of  Babylonian  affairs  we  shall  show  in  another  place.  The 
testimony  of  one  credible  eye-witness  weighs  more  than  that  of  a 
dozen  men  who  write  from  rumour.  Daniel  was  upon  the  spot ;  those 
historians  were  remote. 

But  if  no  such  king  as  Darius  the  Median  ever  existed,  can  we 
believe  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  supposing  it  to  have 
been  forged  in  the  Maccabean  times,  would  have  introduced  him  ? 
Is  it  characteristic  of  the  writers  of  history,  or  even  of  novelists,  to 
introduce  men  as  historical  who,  in  the  judgment  of  mankind,  never 
existed  ?  What  would  we  think  of  even  a  novelist  who  should  insert 
a  king  of  England  between  James  II.  and  William,  Prince  of  Orange  ? 
The  fame  of  Cyrus,  as  the  conqueror  of  Babylon,  completely  eclipsed 
that  of  his  predecessor,  Darius ;  for  it  spread  all  over  the  East  and 
the  West.  Daniel  gives  even  the  age  of  Darius  upon  his  accession 
to  the  kingdom,  which,  if  it  is  not  an  attempt,  without  any  assign 
able  purpose,  to  deceive,  is  a  mark  of  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
monarch,  or,  at  least,  with  his  history.  In  the  apocryphal  addition 
to  Daniel,  written  probably  about  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  we 
have  this  statement :  "  King  Astyages  was  gathered  to  his  fathers, 
and  Cyrus  the  Persian  received  his  kingdom."  Had  Daniel  been 

1  Cyropsedia,  book  i.  Hengstenberg  finds  mention  of  this  Darius  in  the  Arme 
nian  Chronicle  of  Eusebius. 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 


400 


written  in  that  age,  it  would,  doubtless,  have  contained  a  very  sim 
ilar  statement. 

The  account,  in  the  third  chapter,  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  setting  up 
a  golden  image,  and  commanding  every  body  to  worship  it,  has  been 
severely  criticised.  The  image  is  stated  to  have  been  sixty  cubits 
(about  ninety  feet)  high,  and  its  breadth  six  cubits  (about  nine  feet). 
These  proportions,  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  the  Nebuchadnez- 
figure  of  a  human  being,  have  been  pronounced  mon-  Zar'sima8e- 
strous.  It  should  have  been  at  least  fifteen  or  twenty  feet  in 
breadth.  But  we  know  not  what  it  was  intended  to  represent. 
The  image  may  have  stood  upon  a  pedestal,  and  the  whole  height 
may  have  been  ninety  feet,  on  which  supposition  all  difficulty  re 
specting  the  harmonious  proportions  of  the  figure  vanishes.  Nor  is 
there  any  reason  for  supposing  that  the  image  was  of  solid  gold. 

^ooden   altars   covered   with   gold   are   called   golden  by  Moses. 

;omp.  Exod.  xxxvii,  25  with  xxxix,  38,  etc.     The  conduct,  too,  of 

febuchadnezzar,  in  requiring  the  Hebrew  children  to  worship  the 

lage,  has  been  thought  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  toleration  which 
it  that  time  was  allowed  all  religions.     But  it  must  be  borne  in 

lind  that  the  king,  while  willing  to  tolerate  the  religion  of  the  Jews, 
expected  from  them  an  acknowledgment  of  his  own.  It  was  the  ex- 
:lusiveness  of  their  religion  that  excited  his  hatred.  Judaism  admit 
ted  of  no  compromise.  Other  religions,  without  any  sacrifice  of 
their  principles,  could  acknowledge  the  claims  of  other  gods,  and 
:ombine  their  worship  with  that  of  their  own  deities.  It  was  the 
>ame  spirit  of  exclusiveness  that  brought  upon  Christianity  so  much 

:rsecution  in  its  early  history. 

The  truth  of  the  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  insanity  has  been 

illed  in  question  by  some  critics,  especially  on  the  Nebuchadnez- 
;round  of  the  silence  of  ancient  history  respecting  it.  zar>s  lnsanity- 

>ut  this  silence  can  be  easily  explained.  None  of  the  other  books 
>f  the  Old  Testament  make  any  mention  of  the  latter  part  of  the  life  of 

iebuchadnez.zar.  The  historical  books  (with  the  exception  of  Ezra. 
Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  which  treat  of  Jewish  affairs  in  the  Persian 
lominion)  extend  only  to  the  captivity.  There  was  no  occasion, 
therefore,  for  these  writers  to  refer  to  this  event  in  the  king's  life. 
The  oldest  of  the  Greek  historians,  Herodotus,  does  not  give  us  the 
history  of  Nebuchadnezzar  at  all.  Of  the  Chaldean  historians  from 
whom  we  may  expect  any  information  about  this  occurrence  there 
remain  only  Abydenus  and  Berosus.  In  Abydenus  there  is  a  pas 
sage  in  which  Nebuchadnezzar  is  represented  as  ascending  to  the 
>f  of  his  palace,  where  he  becomes  inspired  by  some  god,  and  de 
livers  a  prophecy,  in  which  he  announces  calamity  to  his  country 


410  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

from  the  coming  Persian  mule.1  From  the  language  he  uses  he 
seems  to  refer  to  his  own  madness  and  wanderings.  Abydenus  fin 
ishes  the  statement  by  saying,  "  Having  predicted  these  things  he 
disappeared."8  In  the  judgment  of  the  ancients,  there  was  a  close 
connexion  between  a  prophetic  spirit  and  madness.  Respecting  the 
Chaldean  historians,  it  must  be  observed  that  they  had  a  natural 
propensity  to  embellishment.  It  is  not  likely,  therefore,  that  they 
would  relate  anything  that  would  detract  from  the  greatness  of  their 
kings.  The  remark  of  Rawlinson  is  appropriate  here :  *  In  the  en 
tire  range  of  the  Assyrian  annals  there  is  no  case  where  a  monarch 
admits  a  disaster,  or  even  a  check,  to  have  happened  to  himself  or 
his  generals."  * 

Nebuchadnezzar's  disease  was  lycanthropy,  of  which  several  in 
stances  are  recorded  in  history.  In  the  description  of  the  king's 
madness  strong  expressions  are  used,  in  accordance  with  the  custom 
of  the  Orientals  ;  but  there  is  nothing  to  warrant  us  in  believing  that 
he  was  metamorphosed  into  a  brute. 

The  decree  of  Darius,  that  no  man  should  ask  a  petition  of  any 
god  or  man,  except  of  the  king,  for  thirty  days  (Dan.  vi,  7,  12),  is 
considered  by  some  as  very  improbable,  since  it  would  be  a  suspen 
sion  of  religious  duties  for  the  time.  It  has,  however,  been  shown 
that  the  kings  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  were  worshipped  as  repre 
sentations  and  incarnations  of  Ormuzd;  and  Heeren  remarks  :  "  The 
person  of  the  king  in  Asiatic  kingdoms  is  the  centre  about  which 
every  thing  moves.  He  is  regarded  not  merely  as  ruler,  but  rather 
as  proprietor  of  land  and  people."  Plutarch  relates  that  it  was  a  cus 
tom  among  the  Persians  "  to  honour  the  king,  and  to  worship  the 
image  of  God,  the  preserver  of  all  things."  Curtius  also  says,  "The 
Persians  worship  their  kings  among  the  gods."  That  the  Assyrians  * 
really  regarded  their  kings  as  incarnations  of  their  divinity  Ormuzd 
is  proved  from  the  monuments  of  Nineveh  discovered  by  Layard. 

5.  THE  ALLEGED  CLEARNESS  OF  ITS  PROPHECIES  OF  EVENTS  UNTIL 
THE  TIME  OF  ANTIOCHUS  EPIPHANES,  AND  THE  OBSCURITY  OF 
THOSE  RESPECTING  SUBSEQUENT  ONES. 

The  prophecies  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  are  represented  by  its  op 
ponents  as  being  remarkably  definite  respecting  events  until  the 
close  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (B.  C.  164),  after  which 
they  are  quite  obscure.  If  this  allegation  were  true,  it  would  be 
very  far  from  proving  what  they  allege,  that  the  book  was  written 

Evidently  Cyrus.  a  In  Eusebius,  Praepar.  Evang.,  liber  ix,  41. 

8  Hist.  Illus.  Old  Testament,  p.  144. 

*  That  Nineveh  and  Babylon  were  closely  related  in  religious  views  will  not  be 
denied  ;  and  what  is  true  of  Nineveh  may  be  generally  affirmed  of  Babylon. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  411 

about  the  close  of  the  life  of  that  monarch.  For  we  may  state,  in 
reply,  that  Daniel's  prophecies  respecting  events  until  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  are  not  more  definite  thai,  those  of  some  other 
prophets.  Jeremiah  predicted  that  the  Babylonian  captivity  should 
last  seventy  years  (chaps,  xxv,  n,  12  ;  xxix,  10).  What  more  definite 
than  this  ?  Also,  in  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Babylon  he  is  very 
definite,  describing  the  manner  of  the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  dry 
ing  up  of  the  Euphrates  while  her  men  were  drunk  (chaps.  1,  38 ; 
li,  36,  39).  With  the  exception  of  a  few  Messianic  passages,  there 
is  nothing  definite  after  the  times  of  the  captivity  Isaiah,  too,  is 
very  definite  respecting  Babylon  (chap,  xiii,  19-22).  Also  respect 
ing  Ephraim  he  is  explicit:  "Within  threescore  and  five  years  shall 
Ephraim  be  broken,  that  it  be  not  a  people  "  (chap,  vii,  8).  He  also 
predicts  the  destruction  of  Moab  in  the  most  precise  language  : 
"Within  three  years,  as  the  years  of  a  hireling,"  etc.  (chap,  xvi,  14); 
the  addition,  "as  the  years  of  a  hireling"  is  to  show  that  it  shall  be 
neither  more  nor  less.  And  in  chaps,  lii,  I3~liii,  he  foretells  our 
Saviour's  history  with  great  exactness. 

But,  further,  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  extend  beyond  the  time  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  some  of  them  are  very  defi-  Denniteness 
nite.  Daniel  predicts  the  establishment  of  the  Messiah's 
kingdom  during  the  fourth  empire  (the  Roman)  (chap.  anes. 
ii,  44) ;  that,  after  seventy  weeks  (of  years) ,  the  vision  and  the  proph 
ecy  should  be  sealed  up,  (completed),  reconciliation  made  for  iniq 
uity,  everlasting  righteousness  brought  in,  and  the  Most  Holy 
anointed;  and  that,  from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to 
restore  and  build  Jerusalem  to  Prince  Messiah,1  the  time  should 
be  sixty-nine  weeks  (483  years).  Could  the  Roman  empire,  in  all 
its  grandeur  and  its  wide  dominion,  and  the  establishment  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom  at  a  definite  time  during  its  existence,  have 
been  foreseen  by  human  wisdom  even  in  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  ? 

PROOFS   OF    ITS    GENUINENESS. 
I.    ITS   ADMISSION    INTO    THE    CANON. 

It  is  an  acknowledged  fact  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  has  been  re 
ceived  by  the  Jews  as  a  part  of  Holy  Scripture  ever  since  the  time  of 
Christ.  Of  this  we  have  historical  proof.  According  to  Josephua 
the  canon  of  Scripture  was  closed  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes.  He 
says,  "  From  the  death  of  Moses  till  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  king 
of  Persia,  who  reigned  after  Xerxes,  the  prophets  who  were  after 

1  On  these  prophecies  see  especially  Pusey  on  Daniel 


412  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Moses  wrote  what  was  done  in  their  time  in  thirteen  books.  It  is 
true,  our  history  hath  been  written  since  Artaxerxes  very  particularly, 
but  hath  not  been  esteemed  of  like  authority  with  the  former  by  our 
forefathers,  because  there  hath  not  been  an  exact  succession  of  prophets 
since  that  time." '  Now,  if  the  Book  of  Daniel  had  not  been  written 
until  about  B.  C.  164,  four  hundred  years  after  the  age  of  Daniel, 
supposing  him  to  have  lived  during  the  captivity,  how  couid  it  have 
found  its  way  into  the  canon  ?  "  The  Wisdom  of  Sirach,"  written  in 
Hebrew  not  later  than  about  190  or  180  B.  C.,  is  a  woik  of  great 
merit,  and  stood  high  with  the  rabbies,  but  was  never  admitted  into 
the  canon,  "because,"  as  Fiirst  himself  acknowledges,  "the  canon 
at  that  time  was  already  closed."3  The  First  Book  of  Maccabees, 
written  also  in  Hebrew  originally,  about  B.  C.  120,  a  work  of  merit 
and  reliability,  and  the  Book  of  Tobit>  written  earlier,  were  ex 
cluded  from  the  canon.  What  was  it,  then,  that  gave  Daniel  its  recep 
tion  into  the  canon  ?  Evidently  the  belief  that  it  was  written  by  Dan 
iel,  who  flourished  in  the  Babylonian  captivity.  The  book  professes 
to  have  been  written  by  him  :  "  As  for  me  Daniel,"  etc.,  chap,  vii,  28 ; 
"A  vision  appeared  unto  me,  Daniel,"  chap,  viii,  i ;  "  I  Daniel  faint 
ed,"  etc.,  chap,  viii,  27.  If  the  book  was  not  written  by  Daniel  it  is 
a  forgery,  a  downright  fraud,  in  which  the  author  lies  for  God,  pre 
tending  to  have  received  revelations  from  God  which  he  never  re 
ceived,  and  to  have  seen  visions  that  he  never  witnessed.  In  the 
eyes  of  the  Jews,  and  with  all  who  have  any  moral  sense,  this  was  a 
great  crime.  The  Mosaic  law  is  very  severe  upon  this  point :  "The 
prophet  which  shall  presume  to  speak  a  word  in  my  name  which  I 
have  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  .  .  .  even  that  prophet  sha-11  die  " 
(Dent,  xviii,  20).  It  is  evident  that  the  whole  Jewish  people — Sanhe- 
impossibmtyof  drimandall — were  deceived  in  the  book  if  it  be  not  gen- 
forgery,  uine.  But  how  could  they  believe  that  the  book  had  ex 
isted  as  a  canonical  work  for  four  Jmndred years,  when  it  had  just  been 
forged  ?  "  The  age  of  the  Maccabees,"  says  Havernick,  "  was  one  in 
which  Scripture  learning  already  flourished."  Not  only  does  I.  Macca 
bees  mention  the  assembly  of  the  scribes  (avvayuyri  ypaupareuv)  chap, 
vii,  T2,  but,  also,  the  Book  of  Sirach  praises  the  wisdom  of  the  scribe 
(oofpia  ypa/^arewc),  xxxviii,  24.  How  could  these  men  be  deceived 
in  such  a  plain  case,  if  the  book  were  a  forgery?  Accordin  to 
Bleek's  view,8  the  book  was  written  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epipb- 
anes,  to  encourage  the  Jews  to  resist  that  tyrant,  and  to  obey  the 
law  of  Moses,  by  the  example  of  Daniel  and  his  friends.  But  how  p 
book  forged  at  that  time,  of  which  they  had  heard  nothing  before 

1  Against  Apion   book  i,  sec.  8.  aUeber  den  Kanon,  p.  I 

•Einleitung.pp.  604,  605. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  413 

could  have  nerved  them  to  face  death,  is  not  easy  to  see.     Martyrs 
are  not  made  by  fairy  tales. 

Nowhere  in  the  traditions  of  the  Jews,  as  delivered  by  the  Tal- 
mudists,  is  there  any  intimation  that  even  a  doubt  had  been  raised 
about  the  book  among  their  ancestors.  Had  doubts  existed  upon 
the  subject  we  should  have  heard  of  them,  especially  if  the  book  had 
originated  in  an  age  so  late  as  that  of  the  Maccabees. 

2.    THE    TESTIMONY    OF    JOSEPHUS* 

In  reference  to  one's  being  anxious  respecting  the  knowledge  of 
the  future,  Josephus  says :  "  Let  him  be  diligent  in  the  reading  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel,  which  he  will  find  among  the  sacred  writings"* 
And  he  says  further,  respecting  his  writings :  "  From  them  we  be 
lieve  that  Daniel  conversed  with  God ;  for  he  did  not  only  prophesy 
of  the  future,  as  did  the  other  prophets,  but  he  also  determined  the 
time  of  their  accomplishment."  Again,  in  reference  to  certain  ca 
lamities,  he  affirms :  "  Our  nation  suffered  these  things  under  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes,  according  to  Daniel's  vision,  a'nd  what  he  wrote 
many  years  before  they  came  to  pass.  In  the  very  same  manner  Daniel 
also  wrote  concerning  the  Roman  government,  and  that  our  country 
should  be  made  desolate  by  them.  This  man  left  in  writing  all 
these  things,  as  God  had  showed  them  to  him ;  insomuch  that  such 
as  read  his  prophecies,  and  see  how  they  have  been  fulfilled,  would 
wonder  at  the  honour  wherewith  God  honoured  Daniel,  and  may 
thence  discover  how  the  Epicureans  are  in  error  who  cast  provi 
dence  out  of  human  life."8  He  also  states  that  Alexander  the 
Great,  after  capturing  Gaza,  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  sacri 
ficed  to  God,  and  was  shoiun  the  Book  of  Daniel,  in  which  he  pre 
dicted  that  one  of  the  Greeks  should  overturn  the  kingdom  of  Persia. 
Josephus  also  states  that  when  Alexander  was  engaged  in  the  siege 
of  Tyre,"  he  sent  to  the  high  priest  of  the  Jews,  requesting  him  to 
send  him  an  auxiliary  force,  and  also  provisions,  which  the  high 
priest  refused  to  do,  on  the  ground  of  sworn  allegiance  to  Darius. 
Arrian,  who,  about  A.  D.  150,  wrote  the  history  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  chiefly  from  documents  written  by  the  monarch's  contempo 
raries,  says,  in  speaking  of  Alexander's  determination  to  make  an  ex 
pedition  into  Egypt,  that  "  already  the  other  parts  of  Syria,  called 
Palestine,  had  submitted  to  him,"4  except  Gaza,  which  he  took  by 
siege.  Arrian,  indeed,  says  nothing  of  Alexander's  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
and  of  his  offering  sacrifice  to  God  there,  which,  though  true,  he 

'Antiq.,  book  x,  chap,  x,  sec.  4.     He  was  born  A.  D.  37. 
"Ibid.,  book  x,  chap,  xi,  sec.  7.  'Ibid.,  book  xi,  chap,  viii,  sec.  3-5. 

*  Lib.  ii,  cap.  xxv. 


414  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

may  have  omitted  to  mention  from  hatred  of  the  Jews.1  It  is  in  it 
self  very  probable  that  Alexander  offered  sacrifice  at  Jerusalem,  for 
it  was  his  custom  to  offer  sacrifice  to  all  the  gods  to  whose  temples 
he  could  get  access.  He  made  war  upon  the  Tynans  because  they 
refused  to  admit  him  to  sacrifice  to  Hercules.8  But  whether  the 
prophecies  of  Daniel  were  shown  to  Alexander  or  not,  the  passage 
in  Josephus  furnishes  a  proof  that  the  Jews  believed  that  at  that 
time  the  book  was  already  in  existence,  and,  what  is  important^  was 
not  kept  secret. 

3.     THE   LANGUAGE   OF   THE    BOOK. 

The  language  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  exactly  represents  his  age  and 
position.  About  two  fifths  of  the  book  are  Hebrew  ;  the  remaining 
three  fifths  are  Chaldee.  Its  Hebrew  is  as  pure  as  that  of  almost 
any  book  of  that  age  and  of  the  immediately  succeeding  one.  There 
is  no  blending  of  the  two  languages.  The  first  chapter,  and  the 
first  three  verses  of  the  second,  are  Hebrew.  The  Chaldee  begins 
at  the  fourth  verse,  where  the  Chaldeans  are  represented  as  speak 
ing  in  Aramaic  (Chaldee),  and  ends  with  the  seventh  chapter.  The 
remaining  five  chapters  are  Hebrew.  Now,  if  the  book  had  been 
written  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  nearly  four  hundred  years 
after  the  captivity,  would  its  Hebrew  have  been  so  pure?  The  He 
brew  language  disappeared  from  general  use  a  short  time — perhaps 
something  less  than  a  century — before  the  birth  of  Christ.  In  the 
age  of  the  Maccabees  the  Hebrew  language  was  on  the  point  of 
being  supplanted  by  the  Chaldee,  into  which  it  gradually  passed 
over.  But  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  contains  no  indications  of  its 
Purit  of  Dan-  ^e^n8  ^n  a  transition  state.  Also,  the  Chaldee  of  Daniel 
lei's  Hebrew  is  as  pure  as  that  of  Ezra.  The  language  of  the  book  is 
inexplicable  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  written  in 
the  Maccabean  age ;  but  on  the  supposition  that  Daniel  wrote  the 
book  in  the  captivity  at  Babylon  all  is  easy.  He  had  acquired  a 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  before  he  was  carried  away  to  Babylon,  where 
he  became  master  of  the  Chaldee.  We  have  in  Ezra  iv,  8-vi,  18, 
and  vii,  12-26,  Chaldee  sections— chiefly  decrees  of  Persian  kings 
from  Cyrus  to  Artaxerxes — the  last  not  later  than  a  hundred  years 
after  Daniel  wrote.  With  this  Chaldee  of  the  Persian  court  can  be 
compared  that  found  in  Daniel,  which,  if  genuine,  was  used  at  the 
same  court  about  the  same  time.  The  result  of  the  comparison  is  a 
striking  proof  that  the  Chaldee  of  Daniel  must  belong  to  the  same 
age  with  that  of  Ezra,  and,  consequently,  that  the  author  of  Daniel 

1  As  Arrian  was  a  Pagan,  and  as  Christianity  and  Judaism  were  objects  of  hatred 
to  him,  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  should  pass  over  a  recognition  of  Jehovah  by 
Alexander.  *  Liber  ii,  cap.  xvi. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  415 

must  have  lived  somewhere  near  Babylon  during  the  captivity,  or,  at 
least,  not  long  after  it.  This  is  made  still  stronger  ty  comparing  the 
Chaldee  of  Daniel  with  that  of  the  Targums  (Chaldee  translations) 
of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  written  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty  or  two  hundred  years l  after  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 

Respecting  the  peculiarities  of  the  Chaldee  of  Daniel  and  Ezra, 
and  how  it  differs  from  that  of  the  Targums,  Dr.  Pusey  gives  the 
following  excellent  resumt  of  a  critical  discussion  of  this  subject  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Gill:2— 

"  i.  In  the  Chaldee  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  the  stronger  aspirate  h  is 
U!,ed,  where  in  the  Chaldee  of  the  Targums  it  is  nearly  effaced. 
This  occurs  so  manifoldly  as  evidently  to  involve  a  principle  of  lan 
guage.  It  is  found  in  the  characteristic  letter  of  three  conjugations; 
in  verbs,  whose  last  letter  it  is ;  in  infinitives  of  derived  conjugations ; 
in  the  feminine  of  participles  always  in  Daniel ;  in  adjectives  usually; 
in  the  emphatic  form  which  in  Chaldee  represents  the  article ;  in 
the  pronoun  /,  and  three  particles.  All  these  peculiarities  occur  in 
Ezra  as  well  as  Daniel,  and  with  the  remarkable  agree-  M,Gm  OQ  th<j 
ment  in  both,  that,  although  in  a  lesser  degree,  they  do  Chaldee  of  EZ- 
use  the  later  forms  also.  The  language,  then,  was  appa 
rently  still  in  an  unfixed  state.  They  are  not -Hebraisms,  because 
many  of  the  forms  do  not  belong  to  Hebrew  ;  all  occur  in  Samaritan, 
It  is  a  law  of  all  languages,  that  gutturals  weaken  as  time  goes  on. 

"  2.  Two  conjugations,  which  still  existed  in  the  time  of  Daniel 
and  Ezra,  were,  the  one  mostly,  the  other  wholly,  effaced ;  and  a 
conjugation  was  formed  unknown  to  biblical  Chaldee. 

"  3.  A  fuller  orthography,  implying  a  more  prolonged  pronuncia 
tion  of  vowels  (Daveed  for  David),  has  long  been  recognized  as  be 
longing  to  the  later  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  same  dif 
ference,  though  more  extensive,  is  observed  between  the  biblical 
Chaldee  and  the  Targums. 

"4.  There  are  forms  in  biblical  Chaldee,  common  with  Syriac, 
which  show  that,  at  the  time  when  it  was  written,  the  dialects  of 
Assyria  and  Syria,  East  and  West  Aramaic,  were  not  so  much  sepa 
rated  as  in  the  time  of  the  Targums.  It  is  like  the  fusion  of  dialects 
in  Homer.  Here,  too,  the  Eastern  Aramaic  became  softer  in  the 
time  of  the  Targums. 

"5.  This  correspondence  of  the  biblical  Chaldee  with  the  Syriac 
best  explains  a  form  of  the  substantive  verb  (js'in1?,  *?  instead  of ""  in 
the  future)  found  only  in  biblical  Chaldee,  alike  in  Daniel  and  Ezra, 
yet  insulated  from  all  other  Semitic  forms. 

1  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  flourished  about  the  birth  of  Christ 
*  In  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  Jan.  1861. 


416  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

"6.  Daniel  and  Ezra  use  unabridged,  and  so  older,  forms. 

a  7.  The  biblical  Chaldee  has  pronominal  forms  nearer  the  original 
Semitic  pronoun,  and  Daniel  the  older  form  of  the  two. 

"8.  Other  pronouns  or  particles  are  used  in  a  form  which  ceased 
to  be  used  in  the  Targums. 

"9.  In  regard  to  the  use  of  n,  in  the  biblical  Chaldee  the  older 
tmcontracted  forms  prevail ;  in  the  older  Targums,  the  later  con 
tracted  forms;  but  there  is  considerable  variety.  In  part,  the  bibli 
cal  agrees  with  the  Samaritan  Chaldee. 

'*  10.  In  one  word,  haddabar,  'councillor,'  there  is  probably  a  trace 
of  the  article  in  its  Hebrew  form.  .  .  . 

"  ii.  The  Hebrew  plural  ending,  im  for  in,  occurs  in  two  words 
in  Daniel,  and  in  a  third  in  Ezra.  .  .  . 

"  12.  According  to  the  punctuation,  there  was  a  dual  at  the  time 
of  the  biblical  Chaldee,  which  existed  also  in  the  Samaritan  Chaldee, 
but  was  lost  in  the  time  of  the  Targums. 

"  13.  There  is  a  correspondence  in  other  vowels  between  the  bib 
lical  Chaldee  and  the  Hebrew,  as  distinct  from  the  Targums,  inex 
plicable  except  on  the  ground  of  a  real,  accurate  tradition. 

"  14.  A  letter  (w)  seems  to  have,  at  least,  become  less  used,  be 
tween  the  times  of  biblical  Chaldee  and  the  Targums. 

"  It  may  be  added,  that  even  in  the  space  of  these  six  chapters  of 
Daniel  there  are  a  certain  number  of  words  which  do  not  occur  in 
the  Targums  or  Gemara;  quite  as  many,  or  more,  probably,  than 
would  be  found  in  any  six  chapters  of  any  of  the  Hebrew  historical 
scriptures.  They  are  not  technical  words,  which  there  might  not 
be  occasion  to  use  elsewhere  (as  offices  or  dress  or  instruments,  the 
names  of  which  were  disused  with  the  things);  but  ordinary  words 
of  the  language."1 

The  phrase  D^'D  Dii?,  to  publish  a  decree,  is  common  to  Daniel  and 
Ezra ;  CD;",  to  counsel,  occurs  in  both  books ;  likewise  the  Chaldee 
form  Iran,  they.  The  forms  OU  in  Ezra,  and  >l?u  in  Daniel,  meaning 
a  du?ighill,  are  very  similar.  That  sagacious  critic,  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
regarded  the  peculiar  Chaldee  forms,  which  he  considered  Hebra 
isms,  found  in  Daniel  and  Ezra,  but  wanting  in  even  the  oldest 
Targums,  as  a  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  both  these  biblical  books.* 

Nor  can  it  be  shown  that  the  author  of  Daniel  imitated  Ezra:  for 
some  of  their  forms  are  different.  Also  between  Daniel  and  Ezekicl 
there  are  points  of  resemblance;  e.  g.,  3*n,  in  Piel,  to  make  guilty 

1  Daniel  the  Prophet,  pp.  45-52.     Dr.  Pusey  gives  long  notes,  confiiming  and  il 
lustrating  these  statements. 
8 Chaldee  Grammar,  p.  25. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  417 

is  found  only  in  Dan.  i,  10,  and  in  the  form  3in,  a  debt,  only  in  Ezek. 
xviii,  7  ;  SSp,  smooth,  is  found  only  in  Ezek.  i,  7  and  in  Dan.  Resemblances 
x,  6  ;  and  D'i3n  urn1?,  clothed  in  linen,  in  Dan.  xii,  6,  7,  and  aneTSeiSeL161 
in  Ezek.  ix,  n,  x,  2,  etc. ;  and  in  no  other  biblical  writer. 

We  may  conclude  this  part  of  our  subject  with  a  summary  of  the 
linguistic  argument:  i.  The  purity  of  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel,  which 
shows  that  the  language  could  not  belong  to  an  age  long  posterior 
to  the  captivity;  2.  The  correspondence  of  the  Chaldee  portion  of 
the  book  with  the  Chaldee  of  Ezra,  which  indicates  its  proximity  to 
the  age  of  the  captivity. 

4.    THE    AUTHOR'S   EXACT    HISTORICAL   KNOWLEDGE. 

If  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  composed  in  the  Maccabean  age,  we 
may  expect  to  find  in  it  many  historical  errors.  On  the  contrary, 
we  find  an  exact  knowledge  of  history,  and  an  acquaintance  with 
Persian  customs  and  manners,  which  show  the  proximity  of  the 
author  to  the  events  he  relates. 

It  appears  from  Dan.  v,  30,  that  Belshazzar  was  king  in  Babylon 
when  the  city  was  captured  by  Cyrus.  This  statement,  which  was 
formerly  an  objection  to  the  historical  veracity  of  the  author  of  the 
book,  has  proved  to  be  a  remarkable  proof  of  his  accuracy.  For  the 
king  of  Babylon,  Nabonidus.  is  represented  as  being  shut  up  in  the 
city  Borsippus1  when  Cyrus  captured  Babylon.  But  a  cylinder  has 
been  discovered  in  Babylon,  from  which  it  is  clear  that  Nabonidus 
(or  Labynetus,  according  to  Herodotus)  associated  with  himself  his 
son,  Belshazzar,  in  the  government.*  This  latter  king  was  slain  while 
Nabonidus  was  in  Borsippus.  Accordingly,  Smith,3  in  his  list  of 
Babylonian  kings,  puts :  "  Belsaruzur  (Belshazzar),  son  of  Naboni 
dus,  associated  with  his  father  on  the  throne."  Nebuchadnezzar  is 
called  Belshazzar 's  father  by  the  queen  of  Babylon ;  but  this  need 
create  no  difficulty,  as  the  word  father  is  used  in  such  an  indefinite 
way  as  to  express  ancestor,  author,  or  great  officer. 

In  the  account  of  Belshazzar's  feast  (chap,  v,  1-4)  it  is  stated 
that  the  king  commanded  to  bring  the  golden  and  silver  vessels 
taken  from  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  that  he  and  "his  princes,  his 
wives  and  his  concubines,  might  drink  therein."  In  confirmation  of 
this  usage  of  the  Persians,  different  from  that  of  the  Greeks,  we  have 
the  following  in  Herodotus,  v,  18:  "It  is  customary  with  us  Per 
sians,  whenever  we  make  a  great  feast,  to  bring  in  our  concubines  and 
our  wives  to  sit  beside  us"  In  chap,  v,  30,  Belshazzar  is  said  to  have 

1  According  to  Berosus,  in  Eusebius'  Prsepar.  Evang.,  lib.  ix,  40. 
*See  Rawlinson's  Illustrations  of  Old  Testament,  p.  181. 
"  Assyrian  Discoveries,  p.  445,  made  in  1873  and  1874. 
VOL.  I.— 27 


418  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

been  slain  during  the  very  night  of  the  festivities.  That  the  Baby 
lonians  would  indulge  in  such  festivities  is  not  improbable,  from  the 
statement  of  Herodotus  that  they  had  laid  up  provisions  for  many 
conflrmationof  years>  and  took  no  account  of  the  siege  (lib.  i,  190,  191). 
Daniel's  state-  According  to  Xenophon.  Babylon  was  captured,  and  the 
ment  by  Inde-  .  .  ,  .  .  ,  .  . 
pendent  au-  king  slam,  in  the  night.  In  chap,  vi,  8,  12,  15,  mention 


thorities.  js  made  Qf  the  law  Qf  the  MedgS  anj  Persians;  but  in 

the  Book  of  Esther,  written  at  a  later  period,  and  in  reference  to 
later  events,  the  phraseology  is  Persians  and  Medes  —  Persians  stand 
ing  first,  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  statement  that  Darius  the 
Mede  was  king  during  the  events  which  Daniel  relates,  and  with  the 
fact  that  in  the  time  of  Esther  the  Persians  were  the  ruling  power. 

In  Daniel  vi,  i,  it  is  said  that  it  pleased  Darius  to  set  over  the 
kingdom  one  hundred  and  twenty  princes  (satraps).  Xenophon 
states  that  while  Cyrus  was  in  Babylon  "  he  determined  to  send 
satraps  to  the  conquered  nations."*  What  Daniel  attributes  to 
Darius,  the  vicegerent  of  Cyrus,  was  suggested  by  Cyrus  himself,  in 
all  probability,  as  the  sovereign,  or  was  their  joint  determination. 

The  account  of  the  Magi  could  have  been  written  only  by  one 
most  intimately  acquainted  with  Persian  affairs,  as  was  the  case  with 
Daniel.  Indefiniteness  respecting  the  classes,  sects,  and  customs  of 
a  country  is  always  characteristic  of  those  who  write  at  a  remote  dis 
tance,  either  in  time  or  space,  from  the  objects  of  their  description. 
Daniel  gives  us,  in  chapter  ii,  2,  four  classes  of  the  Magi  caste  . 
D'SEJin,  sacred  scribes  ;  D'9t?K,  magicians  ;  D'SBOD,  sorcerers  ;  D^BO, 

•  %  i  -  .T-  •:-«  -,- 

Chaldeans.  In  chap,  ii,  27  we  have  also  pn'3n,  wise  men  ;  and  pu, 
diviners  (astrologers).  The  investigations  of  Lenormant,  the  great 
Assyriologist,  have  remarkably  confirmed  Daniel  on  the  classes 
of  Magi. 

No  mention  of  prostration  before  the  king  when  addressing  him 
is  made  by  Daniel.  According  to  Arrian,3  Cyrus  was  the  first  king 
who  was  honoured  in  that  way.  As  the  Persians  regarded  their 
kings  as  the  incarnation  of  Ormuzd,  there  was  nothing  strange  in 
worshipping  them.  In  the  Maccabean  age,  prostration  before  kings 
had  long  been  the  custom.  Could  we  have  expected  such  exact 
historical  knowledge  in  a  writer  of  that  age  ? 

In  Dan.  ii,  5  ;  iii,  29,  Nebuchadnezzar  threatens  to  make  the 
houses  of  those  who  do  not  comply  with  his  demands  dunghilh 
(sinks).  The  houses  of  Babylon  were  built  of  unburnt  brick,  and 
when  demolished  and  made  wet  with  rain  they  became  miry  sinks. 

In  Dan.  iii,  6,  Nebuchadnezzar  declares  that  those  who  refuse  tc 

1  Cyropaedia,  liber  vii.         "Ibid,    liber  viii.         *  Exped.  Alexand..  liber  iv.  Ii 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  419 

worship  his  golJen  image  "  shall  the  same  hour  be  cast  Daniel  corrob- 
into  the  midst  of  a  burning  fiery  furnace"  In  Jer.  uSges^anS 
xxix,  22,  we  have  a  clear  instance  of  the  same  kind  of  worship, 
punishment :  "  The  Lord  make  thee  like  Zedekiah,  and  like  Ahab, 
whom  the  king  of  Babylon  roasted  in  the  fire"  Now,  the  Persians  were 
fir  e-7L'Of  shippers,  and  never  punished  criminals  in  this  way;  and  we 
accordingly  find  that,  as  soon  as  the  government  of  Babylon  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  casting  into  a  den  of  lions 
is  substituted  for  it  (Dan.  vi,  7).  Here  is  an  historical  discrimina 
tion  which,  in  all  probability,  would  not  have  been  found  in  a  writer 
of  the  Maccabean  age,  or  even  in  any  writer  who  was  not  personally 
acquainted  with  the  transactions.  Even  the  ancient  Greek  historian, 
Herodotus,1  represents  Cyrus  the  Great,  a  Persian  fire-worshipper, 
as  burning  Croesus — a  gross  error,  that  has  been  ridiculed  by  the 
critics. 

In  Daniel  iv,  30,  Nebuchadnezzar  says  :  "  Is  not  this  great  Babylon 
that  I  have  built  for  the  house  of  the  kingdom  by  the  might  of  my 
power,  and  for  the  honour  of  my  majesty  ?  "  Nebuchadnezzar  built 
a  new  palace  of  great  dimensions  and  beauty.  To  this  palace,  with 
its  environs,  he  here  refers.  The  ruins  of  this  second  Babylon  have 
been  discovered  by  Layard.8  This  is  another  instance  of  historical 
accuracy.  There  is  a  remarkable  correspondence  between  Herod 
otus  (lib.  i,  195)  and  Daniel  (iii,  21)  in  reference  to  Babylonian 
dress.  The  former  mentions  garments  reaching  to  the  feet  (trou 
sers),  a  linen  over-tunic,  and  a  cloak  ;  the  latter  mentions  trousers, 
a  tunic,  and  a  cloak.  (The  English  version  is  here  defective). 

The  author  of  the  book  shows  an  acquaintance  with  the  religion 
of  Zoroaster.  He  represents  Nebuchadnezzar  as  speaking  (chap, 
iv,  13,  17,  23)  of  watchers  exercising  a  superintendence  in  the  affairs 
of  the  world.  In  the  Bun-Dehesh,  a  commentary  on  the  Zend- 
Avesta,  a  passage  is  quoted  from  the  latter  in  reference  to  the 
watchers:  "  Ormuzd  has  set  four  watchers  in  the  four  quarters  ot 
the  heavens."  Could  we  have  expected  this  allusion  from  a  forger 
in  Palestine  in  a  later  age  ? 

But  to  place  the  argument  in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  Daniel 
drawn  from  its  historical  accuracy,  in  a  clear  light,  it  is  Daniel  com- 
necessury  to  compare  it  with  the  writings  of  the  Macca- 
bean  age.  The  absurdities  of  the  Book  of  Tobit  are  writings. 

Liber  i,  86. 

1  The  name  of  Nebuchadnezzar  has  been  found  upon  the  brick  (Layard's  Nineveh, 
vol.  ii,  p.  138).  Layard,  in  his  second  expedition  to  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  says,  in 
reference  to  the  bricks  of  the  latter  place,  "  They  record  the  building  of  the  city  by 
Nebuchadnezzar." — P.  532. 


420  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

known  to  every  reader  of  the  Apocrypha.  No  one  would  for  a  mo 
ment  compare  this  book  with  the  Book  of  Daniel.  Nor  is  the  Book 
of  Judith  much  better.  The  great  power  ascribed  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  to  the  Babylonian  kings  agrees  remarkably  well  with  what 
we  know  of  Oriental  nations ;  but  in  the  apocryphal  addition  to 
Daniel,  the  Babylonians,  in  the  affair  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  are 
represented  as  rising  up  against  the  king,  and  threatening  him  with 
death  if  he  does  not  deliver  up  to  them  Daniel,  and  thereupon  he 
accedes  to  their  demand.  The  second  and  third  Books  of  Maccabees 
are  of  little  historical  value.  The  first  Book  of  Maccabees  is  of  great 
value  as  an  authentic  history  of  the  times  of  which  it  treats.  It  is 
not,  however,  free  from  some  gross  errors.  For  example,  in  chap,  i,  6 
it  states  that  Alexander  the  Great,  upon  his  death,  had  called  to  him 
the  most  distinguished  of  his  servants,  and  divided  his  kingdom 
among  them,  which  we  know  to  be  false.  In  chap,  viii,  7  it  states 
that  the  Romans  took  Antiochus  the  Great  alive ;  but,  in  fact,  they 
never  captured  him  at  all.  In  chap,  viii,  8  it  is  said  they  took  from 
him  India,  which,  however,  he  never  possessed.  In  chap,  viii,  1 6  it  is 
stated  that  the  Romans  entrust  their  government  to  one  man  annu 
ally,  who  rules  over  the  whole  country,  and  everybody  obeys  him. 
It  is  well  known  that  they  elected  two  consuls  annually.  We  need 
not  cite  other  errors.  Now,  if  an  author  about  the  time  of  the  Mac 
cabees,  writing  of  events  that  occurred  and  of  customs  that  existed 
in  his  own  age  and  in  the  ages  immediately  preceding,  has  commit 
ted  such  errors,  what  would  he  have  done  had  he  attempted  to  de 
scribe  Babylonian  history  and  customs  ? 

5.  OTHER  ARGUMENTS  IN  PROOF  OF  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  BOOK, 

The  symbolic  form  of  Daniel's  prophecies  suits  well  the  place  of 
their  delivery.  In  chaps,  viii,  2,  and  x,  4,  he  represents  river  banks 
as  the  scenes  of  his  visions.  This  was  very  appropriate  for  a  prophet 
in  Babylon,  but  not  for  one  in  Palestine.  Daniel  was  familiar  with 
the  Euphrates,  Tigris,  and  other  streams,  either  in  the  vicinity  of 
Babylon  or  not  very  remote;  and  we  find  that  the  Deity  usually 
adapts  himself  to  the  conceptions  and  positions  of  the  prophets  in  his 
revelations  to  them.  The  imagery  of  Daniel's  vision  in  the  seventh 
chaptei  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  found  on  monuments  in  the  ruins 
of  Nineveh.  Daniel  speaks  of  a  lion  that  had  eagle's  wings,  and  of 
a  leopard  that  had  four  wings.  Here  we  are  strongly  reminded  of 
the  winged  bull  and  other  figures  excavated  by  Layard.  Nebuchad 
nezzar's  dream  of  the  great  image  is  in  exact  accordance  with  Baby 
lonian  taste,  for  the  Babylonians  were  remarkably  fond  of  the  gro- 
lesque  and  the  rude.  "  In  his  [Daniel's]  strains,"  remarks  Schlosser, 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  421 

wno  is  no  friend  to  Scripture,  "a  Chaldean  and  Babylonian  style  is 
so  conspicuous  that  it  strongly  expresses  the  character  of  the  times 
in  which  he  lived." 

The  character  of  Daniel's  prophecies  suits  his  position*  He  was 
engaged  in  the  State  affairs  of  the  greatest  nation  of  the  Agreement  be- 
age.  It  is  therefore  very  probable  that  he  would  be  deeply  S^mstanoos8 
anxious  to  know  what  would  be  the  fate  of  this  kingdom  and  MS  work, 
especially  in  relation  to  the  influence  it  would  have  upon  the  chosen 
people.  Further,  it  is  probable,  unless  we  deny  all  prophecy,  that 
God  would  make  known  to  him  the  future,  and  choose  him  for  the 
office  which  the  history  ascribes  to  him. 

The  Messianic  character  of  the  book  is  remarkable.  Poverty  of 
ideas  and  want  of  comprehensive  views  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom 
mark  the  apocryphal  writings.  Daniel  describes  the  four  great  king 
doms  of  the  ancient  world,  and  in  his  lofty  flight  passes  rapidly  to 
the  fifth  kingdom,  that  of  the  Messiah,  which  should  break  in  pieces 
and  consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  stand  forever.  In  his  descrip 
tion  of  the  Ancient  of  Days  he  employs  the  most  sublime  imagery, 
and  represents  myriads  as  gathered  before  him  for  judgment.  Are 
these  lofty  and  pious  conceptions  consistent  with  base  imposture  ? 

In  i  Maccabees  ii,  49-60,  it  is  stated  that  Mattathias,  when  about 
to  die,  exhorted  his  sons  to  steadfastness  in  the  law,  by  referring 
them  to  many  distinguished  examples  of  obedience  to  God  in  time 
of  trial  in  different  ages  of  the  world.  He  names  Abraham,  Joseph, 
Phinehas,  Joshua,  Caleb,  David,  and  Elijah.  Immediately  following 
these  worthies,  and  in  the  same  list,  are  the  following,  found  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel :  "  Ananias,  Azarias,  and  Mishael,  by  believing,  were 
saved  from  the  flame.  Daniel  in  his  simplicity  [innocency]  was 
saved  from  the  mouth  of  the  lions."  Now,  since  the  other  names  in 
this  list  are  selected  from  the  written  history  of  the  Jews,  it  is  very 
probable  that  these  last  are  also  the  names  of  distinguished  Jews 
occurring  in  written  history.  If  it  had  been  a  floating  tradition,  it  is 
very  improbable  that  it  would  have  been  cited.  Mattathias  died 
about  B.  C.  1 66,  and  the  first  Book  of  Maccabees  was  written  prob 
ably  forty  years  later.  Even  if  Mattathias  did  not  use  the  examples 
in  Daniel  attributed  to  him,  the  writer  must  have  believed  that  the 
Book  of  Daniel  was  then  in  existence,  which  is  an  important  point. 

Between  B.  C.  285  and  140  the  entire  Old  Testament  was  trans 
lated  into  Greek.  In  this  version  (the  LXX),  Daniel  was  included. 
The  phrase,  ftdEkvypa  cpT/^axrea)^,  abomination  of  desolation,  i  Mace,  i,  54, 
was,  in  all  probability,  taken  from  Dan.  ix,  27,  in  the  LXX.  These 
facts  themselves  make  it  probable  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  existed 
before  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  the  third  book  of  the 


423  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

Sibylline  Oracles,  composed  for  the  most  part  by  an  Alexandrian  Jew 
of  the  Maccabean  age,  according  to  the  recent  critical  investigations, 
there  is  an  evident  imitation  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  several  points. 
This  is  another  probable  proof  of  the  existence  of  our  book  before 
the  Maccabean  age. 

There  is  a  striking  difference  between  the  book  of  Daniel  and 
Freedom  of  the  the  apocryphal  writings  in  a  point  we  think  worthy  of  no» 
Kayers°in  toe  tice — its  freedom  from  prayers  in  the  midst  of  narratives. 
narrative.  Tobit,  i  Maccabees,  Judith,  and,  indeed,  all  the  apocry 
phal  books — we  know  of  no  exception — abound  with  prayers  and 
ejaculations.  The  Book  of  Esther,  in  Hebrew,  contains  no  prayers; 
but  there  is  no  want  of  them  in  the  Greek  version.  In  Daniel  not 
a  word  of  prayer  is  mentioned  as  having  been  uttered  by  the  Hebrew 
children  in  the  fiery  furnace.  In  the  Greek  version,  however,  prayers 
are  put  into  their  mouths.  No  prayers  are  ascribed  to  Daniel  in  the 
lions'  den.  Had  Daniel *  been  written  in  the  age  of  the  apocryphal 
writers,  it  would,  in  all  probability,  have  abounded  in  prayers  and 
pious  ejaculations.  It  is  difficult  to  explain  how  the  book  could 
have  arisen  in  the  age  of  such  writers,  at  the  time  the  Greek  version 
was  made,  and  yet  be  wanting  in  the  very  additions  characteristic  of 
the  times.  In  several  places  in  chap,  ix  Daniel  uses  the  name  mrv, 
Jehovah;  but  there  can  be  no  dbubt  that  already,  before  the  age 
of  the  Maccabees,  the  Jews  had  ceased  to  use  that  name,  through  a 
superstitious  reverence. 

If  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  written  about  the  time  of  the  cap 
tivity,  then  we  have  no  authentic  history  of  that  period.  But  if  any 
events  of  importance  occurred  during  that  period — any  events  of 
the  character  of  those  in  the  book  of  Daniel — they  would,  in  all  prob 
ability,  have  been  written  about  that  time.  The  history  in  Daniel 
shows  that  God  had  not  abandoned  his  people  during  the  captivity, 
and  that  the  Divine  interposition  in  their  behalf  prepared  the  way 
for  their  return  to  their  native  land. 

But  we  must  not  overlook  the  testimony  of  our  Saviour  and  his 
The  testimony  apostles  to  the  book.  He  calls  Daniel  the  prophet,  and 
his  aposties'to  refers  to  nis  prophecy  concerning  the  abomination  of 
Daniel.  desolation  (Matt,  xxiv,  15).  The  appellation  our  Sav 

iour  gives  himself,  "  Son  of  man,"  is  taken  from  Dan.  vii,  13.  The 
imagery  in  the  Book  of  Revelation  is  partly  borrowed  from  it ;  and 
Paul's  description  of  the  man  of  sin  (2  Thess.  ii)  seems  to  have  been 
partly  derived  from  it.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
refers  to  the  Hebrew  children  in  the  fiery. furnace  and  to  Daniel  in 
the  lions'  den  (chap,  xi,  33,  34). 

*  The  prayer  oi  Daniel  in  chap,  ix  is  required  by  the  circumstances. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  42:5 


APOCRYPHAL    ADDITIONS   TO   THE   ORIGINAL   TEXT    OF    DANIEL. 

In  the  LXX  we  find  several  long  additions  to  the  Hebrew  and 
Chaldee  text  of  Daniel.  They  consist  of  the  Story  of  Susanna  (sixty- 
four  verses),  prefixed  to  the  book,  the  Prayer  of  Azariah,  and  the 
Thanksgiving  Hymn  of  the  three  Hebrew  children  in  the  fiery  fur 
nace  (sixty-seven  verses),  inserted  between  the  twenty-third  and 
twenty-fourth  verses  of  chapter  iii ;  and  the  Story  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  (forty-two  verses),  placed  at  the  end  of  the  book.  Fiirst  re 
marks  that  these  additions  are  found  also  in  the  Talmuds  and  in 
the  Midrash.  From  this  he  infers  that  they  existed  in  Hebrew  as  well 
as  in  Aramaic  and  Greek,  and  that  to  suppose  that  the  Greek  was  their 
oiiginal  language  is  more  than  doubtful.1  But  it  seems  evident  that 
the  Story  of  Susanna  was  originally  written  in  Greek  from  the  parono 
masia  on  o%ivov  and  0%i'a«,  and  nplvov  and  rrpioai.  These  additions 
to  the  book  of  Daniel  are  totally  destitute  of  authority. 


CHAPTER   LII. 

THE    TWELVE    MINOR    PROPHETS. 

'"PHE  twelve  minor  prophets  are  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah, 
-*•  Jonah,  Micah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zecha- 
riah,  and  Malachi.  Their  works  are  small  books,  and,  all  com 
bined,  do  not  fill  as  many  pages  as  the  Prophet  Ezekiel.  Several 
of  them  contain  each  but  two  or  three  chapters ;  and  one  of  them, 
Obadiah,  but  a  single  one.  They  stand  in  the  third  division  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  embracing  later  prophets,  immediately  after  Ezekiel, 
in  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in  the  English  version.  If  the  pas 
sage  in  Jesus  Sirach  a  be  genuine,  they  formed  in  his  time  one  col 
lection.  It  is  evident  that  in  the  time  of  Josephus  they  made  one 
book.  In  the  canon  of  Melito  3  and  Jerome  4  they  formed  one  book. 
The  ancient  tradition  of  the  Jews  *  relates  that  they  were  united  into 
one  volume,  because  otherwise  they  might  have  been  lost  on  account 
of  their  being  so  small.  For  the  most  part  they  are  arranged  in  the 
order  of  time. 

THE    PROPHET    HOSEA.* 

This  prophet  exercised  his  ministry  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah,  and  in  the  days  of  Jeroboam, 

1  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  102,  103.        'xlix,  10.          'In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl,  iv,  26 
4  Preface  to  Samuel  and  Kings.       *  Fiirst,  p.  28.       a  Hebrew,  3>Enn.  Deliverance 


424  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

(he  son  of  Joash,  king  of  Israel — a  period  of  not  less  than  sixty  years. 
Nothing  is  known  of  his  personal  history.  It  is  stated  simply  that 
he  was  the  son  of  Beeri.  According  to  a  tradition"  of  the  Jews  he 
was  a  Reubenite,  from  beyond  the  Jordan.  His  prophecies  were  di 
rected  principally  to  Ephraim  and  Samaria,  and  but  occasionally  to 
Judah.  He  doubtless  spent  most  of  his  time  among  the  ten  tribes, 
and  he  speaks  of  "  our  king"  when  referring  to  one  of  these  princes 
(chapter  vii,  5).  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  was  born  in  that 
kingdom. 

The  book  may  be  appropriately  divided  into  two  parts :  First,  the 
symbolical  actions  of  the  prophet  in  entering  upon  his  ministry 
(chaps,  i-iii) ;  and,  secondly,  the  prophecies  respecting  the  ten  tribes 
chiefly,  but  also,  in  some  instances,  Judah  (chaps,  iv-xiv). 

DATE   OF   COMPOSITION. 

It  cannot  be  certainly  determined  whether  the  prophecies  were 
written  before  a^  WI"itten  at  tne  same  time,  or  at  different  periods  dur- 
the  fail  of  sa-  ing  the  reign  of  the  several  monarchs  whose  names  stand 
at  the  beginning  of  the  book.  Yet  it  is  probable  that 
they  contain  the  substance  of  what  the  prophet  at  various  times  de 
livered  orally,  and  that  they  were  written  down  in  their  present  form 
near  the  close  of  his  life.  From  the  many  exhortations  addressed  to 
the  ten  tribes,  and  from  the  prophecy  of  the  desolation  of  Samaria, 
the  book  bears  internal  evidence  of  having  been  written  before  the 
fall  of  Samaria  (B.  C.  721).  It  is  evident  that  the  first  chapter  was 
delivered,  and  in  all  probability  written,  before  the  death  of  Zacha- 
riah  (about  B.  C.  772),  the  last  king  of  the  line  of  Jehu  ;  for  in  chap. 
i,  4,  Jehovah  says,  "  I  will  avenge  the  blood  of  Jezreel  upon  the  house 
of  Jehu." 

Nowhere  in  the  book  is  there  any  intimation  that  the  house  of 
Jehu  had  already  fallen,  or  that  Samaria  had  been  taken  by  the  As 
syrian  king.  In  chap,  x,  14,  it  is  said,  "All  thy  fortresses  shall  be 
spoiled,  as  Shalman  spoiled  Beth-arbel  in  the  day  of  battle."  But 
this  passage  throws  no  light  upon  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the 
book,  for  it  is  not  certain  that  Shalman  is  the  same  as  Shalmaneser, 
and  if  it  were  we  do  not  know  which  one  is  meant,  as  three  Shalma- 
nesers  reigned  between  B.  C.  860  and  B.  C.  722.  The  Beth  arbel a 

1  Jotham  reigned  sixteen  years,  and  Ahaz  sixteen ;  and  from  the  death  of  Jero 
boam  II.  to  the  death  of  Uzziah  ar.d  the  beginning  of  Jotham's  reign,  there  were 
twenty-five  years  ;  which,  added  together,  make  a  total  of  fifty-seven  ;  and,  by  al 
lowing  one  or  two  years  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam,  and  one  or  two  in  that  of  Hez- 
ckiah,  \ve  have  about  sixty  years.  "  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  29 

"Firnt  supposes  this  to  be  Arbela  in  Persia ;  while  Gesenius  thinks  it  is  probably 
Arbela  in  Galilee. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  425 

spoken  of  is  probably  Arbela,  near  Gaugameia,  in  Persia.  It  is 
probable  that  Hosea  left  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  came  to 
Judah,  with  his  book  of  prophecies,  some  time  before  the  capture 
of  Samaria.  Hence  it  was  preserved,  and  put  among  the  other 
prophets. 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  HOSEA. 

"  The  style  of  Hosea,"  says  Keil,  "  is  highly  poetical,  rich  in  bold 
and  powerful  imagery,  full  of  vigorous  thinking  and  beautiful  de 
lineation,  yet  often  abrupt,  bounding  from  one  image  to  another, 
and  by  no  means  free  from  difficulties  and  obscurities.  The  lan 
guage  has  many  peculiar  words  and  unusual  constructions."1  He 
is  also  distinguished  for  directness,  and  for  the  practical  charactei 
of  his  teachings. 

THE    PROPHET   JOEL.' 

Nothing  is  known  of  the  personal  history  of  this  prophet.  He 
is  simply  called  the  son  of  Pethuel  (chap,  i,  i).  His  prophecies  are 
directed  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem  (chapters  ii,  i,  15,  17,  23,  32;  iii, 
i,  6,  8,  16-21),  and,  in  all  probability,  he  dwelt  in  Jerusalem. 

The  book  is  naturally  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first,  embrac 
ing  chaps,  i,  ii,  1-17,  contains  a  description  of  the  plagues  that  have 
come  upon  the  land  of  Judah,  especially  the  plague  of  locusts,  and 
also  an  announcement  of  the  judgments  of  the  Almighty  that  are 
about  to  overtake  the  people.  The  second  part,  embracing  chaps,  ii, 
i8-iii,  contains  promises  of  deliverance  and  prosperity  to  Judah,  and 
announces  the  blessings  and  judgments  of  God  in  Messianic  times. 

Two  questions  arise  respecting  the  plague  of  locusts :  Does  the 
prophet  predict  the  plague,  or  does  he  describe  it  as  Questions  con- 
already  existing?  Is  the  plague  of  locusts  to  be  under-  p^g^of  *£! 
stood  literally,  or  allegorically,  for  great  armies  of  men  ?  ousts. 
Bleek  remarks  that  Luther,  Calvin,  and  most  of  the  recent  exposi 
tors,  regard  it  as  a  description  of  a  present  plague,  and  that  most 
recent  interpreters  understand  it  of  real  locusts.  Hengstenberg 
regards  it  as  prophetic  and  allegorical,  as  a  "  poetical  description, 
and  not  one  of  natural  history ;  "  a  representation  of  destructive 
invading  armies,  under  the  figure  of  devouring  locusts. 

The  language  used  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  description  indi 
cates  that  it  is  something  already  present :  "  Hear  this,  ye  old  men, 
and  give  ear,  ail  ye  inhabitants  of  the  land.  Hath  this  been  in  your 

Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  371,  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library. 
*  Hebrew,  5s*in,   To  whom  Jehovah  is  God. 


426  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

days,  or  even  in  the  days  of  your  fathers?  Tell  ye  your  children 
of  it,  and  let  your  children  tell  their  children,  and  their  children 
another  generation.  That  which  the  palmer-worm  hath  left  hath 
the  locust  eaten,"  etc.  (chap.  i.  2-4).  If  it  be  conceded  that  the 
plague  is  described  as  something  present,  it  will  follow  that  the 
description  is  literal ;  for  no  one  would  think  of  representing  an 
army  of  men  who  were  laying  waste  the  country  and  slaughtering 
human  beings  as  a  swarm  of  locusts  destroying  all  the  vegetation,  and 
climbing  up  upon  the  houses,  and  entering  in  at  the  windows.  But  on 
the  supposition  that  the  description  is  prophetic  and  allegorical, 
there  arises  this  difficulty,  that  it  is  too  minute.  Parables  and  alle 
gories  never  admit  of  minute  application,  and  are  expressed  in  gen 
eral  terms.  From  chapter  i,  20,  it  appears  that  a  drought  at  the 
same  time  had  come  upon  the  land.  This  must  be  taken  literally, 
and  furnishes  presumptive  proof  that  the  other  is  literal  also.  Some 
of  the  verbs  in  the  description  are  in  the  future  tense  ;  but  the 
Hebrew  often  uses  this  tense  for  the  present.  The  locusts  are 
called  a  nation  ("ij),  but  this  word  is  used  in  various  passages  foi 
"flights  or  troops  of  animals"  (Gesenius).  In  chapter  ii,  17,  the 
priests  are  exhorted  to  pray  to  the  Lord  to  spare  his  heritage,  that 
the  heathen  may  not  use  a  song  of  derision  against  them.  In  chap, 
ii,  19,  God  promises  to  send  corn,  wine,  and  oil  to  his  people,  and 
no  more  to  make  them  a  reproach  among  the  heathen.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  destruction  of  the  country  by  the  locusts  would  furnish  the 
heathen  an  occasion  to  revile  the  Israelites  as  being  abandoned  of 
God,  or  to  assert  that  he  was  unable  to  save  them. 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  PROPHECY  OF  JOEL. 

There  is  nothing  definite  in  the  book  respecting  the  age  to  which 
Written  after  *r  belongs.  From  the  way  in  which  Judah  and  Jerusa- 
tbe  revolt  of  lem  are  named,  it  is  clear  that  it  was  written  after  the 
the  ten  tribes.  separation  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  house  of  David, 
and  while  the  temple  was  still  standing  (chapter  ii,  17).  Bunsen 
places  it  as  early  as  B.  C.  950;  and  Hilgenfeld  subsequently  to  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon.  These  are  the  two  extremes. 
Schrader  decides  in  favour  of  B.  C.  870  as  tl;  e  date  of  the  prophecy. 
He  fixes  upon  this  date  for  the  following  reasons  :  first,  there  is  no 
mention  made  either  of  the  Syrians  (and,  therefore,  the  prophecy  is 
earlier  than  2  Kings  xii,  17),  or  of  the  Assyrians  (for  this  reason  it  is 
previous  to  Amos),  but  simply  of  Phoenicians  and  Philistines  (chap. 
iii,  4;  compare  2  Chron.  xxi,  16),  Egyptians  and  Edomites  (chapter 
iii,  19;  compare  2  Kings  viii,  20-22  ;  xiv,  7),  as  people  hostile  to  Is 
rael ;  secondly,  the  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  law  are  presupposed; 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  427 

and,  finally,  Joel  is  imitated  by  Amos  (compare  Amos  i,  2  with  Joel 
iii,  16).*  On  very  similar  grounds  Keil a  decides  in  favour  of  .a  date 
between  B.  C.  877  and  B.  C.  847. 

But  it  must  be  observed  that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  on 
internal  grounds  whether  Amos  has  quoted  Joel  or  Joel  Amos;  and 
the  fact  that  Joel  does  not  speak  of  the  Assyrians  among  the  ene 
mies  of  Judah  does  not  compel  us  to  place  him  earlier  than  about 
the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  before  Christ,  when  the  Assyrians 
appeared  as  the  enemies  of  Israel.  In  chapter  iii,  4-8,  the  prophet 
remonstrates  with  Tyre  and  Zidon  and  the  coasts  of  Palestine  (Phil 
istines),  because  they  "  have  taken  away  my  silver  and  my  gold," 
and  carried  into  their  temples  "my  goodly,  pleasant  things;  "  *'The 
children  also  of  Judah  and  the  children  of  Jerusalem  have  ye  sold 
unto  the  Grecians,"  etc.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
the  prophet  here  refers  to  an  irruption  of  the  Philistines  and  others, 
who  broke  into  the  house  of  King  Jehoram  and  carried  away  all  its 
substance,  "and  his  sons,  also,  and  his  wives"  (2  Chron.  xxi,  16,  17). 
This  was  about  B.  C.  887.  It  seems  that  at  the  same  time  the  Phil 
istines  damaged  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  as  not  many  years  after 
ward  mention  is  made  of  breaches  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  (2  Kings 
xii,  4-16).  We  may  conclude  that  the  book  was  written  about  B.C. 
870.  Bleek,3  from  certain  resemblances  it  bears  to  Amos,  places 
it  about  B.  C.  800.  Fiirst  places  it  B.  C.  885." 

CHARACTER  OF  HIS  PROPHECY. 

On  this  point  Bleek  well  remarks:  "In  a  literary,  poetical  point 
of  view,  Joel's  prophecy  belongs  to  the  finest  productions  of  Hebrew 
literature.  In  florid,  vivid  description  it  is  unsurpassed.  Also  in 
respect  to  its  prophetic,  Messianic  character  it  is  important ;  al 
though,  of  course,  in  this  it  stands  somewhat  behind  the  predictions 
of  many  other  prophets."1 

THE    PROPHET    AMOS." 

Of  this  prophet  we  know  nothing  more  than  what  is  derived  from 
his  own  writings.  He  informs  us  in  the  beginning  of  his  prophecy 
that  he  was  one  of  the  herdmen  of  Tekoa,T  and  that  in  the  days  of 
Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  and  in  those  of  Jeroboam,  son  of  Joash,  king 
of  Israel,  two  years  before  the  earthquake,  he  received  the  oracles 

1  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  454.        *  Introd.,  i,  p.  376,  in  Clark's  For.  Theo.  Lib 
3Einleitung,  p.  530.  4  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  30. 

*Einleitung,  p.  531.  "Hebrew,  01735,  Borne. 

T  A  town  about  twelve  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  on  the  borders  cf  the  Desert  c£ 

Judea. 


428  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

concerning  Israel.  He  further  tells  us  that  he  was  no  prophet,  nor 
the  son  of  a  prophet,  but  "  a  herdman  and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore 
fruit ;  and  the  Lord  took  me  as  I  followed  the  flock,  and  the  Lord 
said  unto  me,  Go,  prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel "  (chapter  vii, 
14,  15).  While  engaged  in  the  prophetic  office  at  Bethel,  Amaziah, 
priest  of  that  place,  sent  a  message  to  Jeroboam,  king  of  Israel,  that 
Arnos  was  conspiring  against  him ;  at  the  same  time  he  exhorted  the 
prophet  to  flee  into  the  land  of  Judea  and  prophesy  (chap,  vii,  10-13). 
It  is  probable  that  he  soon  afterward  left  for  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
where  he  doubtless  wrote  this  book.  Of  his  prophecies  only  the  pas 
sages  chaps,  ii,  4,  5,  vi,  i,  concern  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  his  special 
mission  being  to  the  ten  tribes. 

This  book  may  be  divided  into  two  parts :  the  first  (chaps,  i-vi) 
containing  prophecies  against  various  nations,  and  reproofs  and  ex 
hortations  to  Israel ;  the  second  (chapters  vii-ix)  containing  visions^ 
setting  forth  the  divine  judgments  upon  Israel,  and  also  Messianic 
prophecies. 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  AMOS. 

Amos  states  in  the  first  verse  that  he  received  his  oracles  in  the 
days  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Joash,  king  of  Israel,  and  in  the  days 
of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  two  years  before  the  earthquake.  From 
this  it  appears  that  he  received  his  commission  that  year,  but  we  are 
unable  to  determine  from  it  how  long  his  ministry  among  the  ten 
tribes  lasted,  though  it  is  probable  that  it  was  completed  in  that 
single  year.  Jeroboam  reigned  from  B.  C.  825  to  B.  C.  784,  and 
Uzziah  from  B.  C.  810  to  B.C.  758.  Internal  evidence  confirms  the 
superscription,  for  reference  is  made  in  chapter  vii,  10  to  Jeroboam 
as  a  contemporary.  In  Zechariah  xiv,  5  reference  is  made  to  the 
earthquake  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah.  According  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Jews,1  the  earthquake  occurred  in  the  twenty-seventh 
year  of  the  reign  of  Uzziah  (about  B.  C.  783).  As  Jeroboam's  reign 
ended  B.  C.  784,  it  is  obvious  that  we  cannot  place  Amos  later  than 
that  date.  Could  we  rest  upon  the  Jewish  tradition  respecting  the 
year  of  the  earthquake,  the  date  of  the  prophecy  could  be  fixed  with 
great  accuracy  at  B.  C.  785  ;  but  in  the  uncertainty  of  the  tradition 
we  may  place  it  about  B.  C.  795. 

CHARACTER  OF  HIS  PROPHECY. 

Respecting  the  literary  character  of  Amos,  Bleek  remarks :  "  His 
language  is  poetical,  even  in  narrating  visions,  but  upon  the  whole 
it  is  very  plain,  calm,  measured.  In  general  it  is  pure."8  "  Nowhere 

'Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  30,  31.  *  Einleitung,  p.  535. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  429 

else,  '  says  Evvald,  "in  the  prophets  do  we  meet  \\ith  images  from 
country  life  in  such  pure  originality  and  loveliness,  and  in  such  in- 
exhaustible  fulness." 


THE    PROPHET    OBADIAH.1 

Nothing  of  a  personal  character  is  known  of  this  prophet.  Ac 
cording  to  a  tradition  in  the  Talmud  he  was  an  Idumean  who,  at  a 
later  period  passed  over  to  Judaism  and  became  Ahab's  steward, 
and  because  he  protected  and  supported  a  hundred  prophets  re 
ceived  the  prophetic  gift.2  This  tradition  seems  to  -us  to  be  of  little 
value.  It  is  evident  from  his  prophecy  that  he  was  a  Jew,  living  in 
Judah. 

The  prophecy  consists  of  but  a  single  chapter  of  twenty-one  verses, 
and  is  the  smallest  of  the  prophetic  books.  It  is  chiefly  of  a 
threatening  character,  and  is  directed  against  the  Edomites  on  ac 
count  of  their  violence  toward  the  children  of  Judah  in  the  day  of 
calamity,  when  Jerusalem  was  captured.  At  the  same  time  judg 
ment  is  declared  against  all  the  heathen;  but  salvation  and  restora 
tion  are  promised  to  the  house  of  Jacob.  Jacob  and  Joseph  are  to 
consume  Esau  as  stubble;  the  children  of  Israel  that  have  been  led 
away  captive  are  ,to  return,  and  deliverers  shall  stand  on  Zion  to 
judge  the  mount  of  Esau. 


DATE   OF   THE    PROPHECY. 


It  is  difficult  to  fix  the  date  of  this  prophecy,  as  we  have  to  rely 
altogether  upon  internal  evidence  of  an  obscure  character;  and 
hence  the  greatest  diversity  of  opinion  respecting  it  exists  among 
biblical  critics.  I«i  determining  the  age  of  Obadiah's  prophecy,  it  is 
necessary  to  consider  what  relation  it  bears  to  a  very  similar  one  in 
Jer.  xlix.  7-22,  against  Edom.  From  an  examination  of  the  proph 
ecy  in  both  of  these  prophets  it  is  evident  that  one  of  them  has 
copied  the  other.  Which,  then,  is  the  original  ?  If  Jeremiah  is  to 
be  so  regarded,  we  have  the  singular  spectacle  of  a  prophet  making 
•  his  appearance  with  a  single  chapter  of  matter,  called  a  vision,  prin 
cipally  borrowed  from  a  great  prophet  living  just  before  him  !  What 
place  could  there  be  for  him !  On  the  other  hand,  if  Obadiah  is  the 
original,  there  is  nothing  strange  in  Jeremiah's  borrowing  from  him 
in  his  own  great  prophetic  book,  just  as  he  has  borrowed  from 
Isaiah.  Eichnorn,  Rosenmtiller,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  Caspari, 
Keil,  Kleinert,  and  others.,  are  in  favour  of  the  originality  of  Oba- 

1  Hebrew,  rP*O3>,  Worshipper  of  Jehovah.        *  Furst,  Ue1»er  den  Kanon,  p.  32. 


430  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

diah,  while  Bertholdt,  Knobel,  Hitzig,  Bleek,  and  others,  favour  that 
of  Jeremiah. 

The  capture  of  Jerusalem  to  which  Obadiah  refers  cannot  be 
that  made  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  for  he  carried  away  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  to  Babylon.  The  language  of  the  prophet  refers  to  a  very 
different  captivity :  "  The  captivity  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  in  Seph- 
arad,  shall  possess  the  cities  of  the  south  "  (ver  20).  This  most 
probably  refers  to  the  capture  of  the  city  in  the  reign  of  Jehoram 
(about  B.  C.  887),  when  the  Philistines  and  the  Arabians  made  an 
irruption  into  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and  took  captives,  and  carried 
off  valuable  property  (2  Chron.  xxi,  16,  17).  To  this  Joel  seems  to 
refer  (chap,  iii,  4-6).  He  represents  the  children  of  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  as  sold  to  the  Grecians.  The  captivity  of  Jerusalem  in 
Sepharad  (Obadiah  20) — a  district  in  or  about  Asia  Minor — seems 
to  be  that  of  a  part  of  the  people  carried  away  at  that  time. 

It  seems  best,  then,  to  refer  the  plundering  of  Jerusalem,  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  Obadiah,  to  the  reign  of  Jehoram,  and  the 
prophecy  to  the  time  immediately  subsequent,  or  about  B.  C.  880. 
If  it  be  conceded  that  Jeremiah  quotes  Obadiah,  it  will  confirm  this 
date.  Hoffman  and  Delitzsch  hold  that  Obadiah  prophesied  under 
Jehoram,  and  he  is  placed  by  Keil l  in  the  same  age  (about  B.  C. 
889-884).  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  others,  place  him  in  the 
reign  of  Uzziah.  Aben  Ezra,  Luther,  and  many  recent  writers,  in 
cluding  Bleek,  hold  that  Obadiah  prophesied  immediately  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 


THE    BOOK    OF   JONAH.1 

It  is  stated  in  the  beginning  of  this  book  that  "  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  unto  Jonah  the  son  of  Amittai."  He  is  evidently  the 
same  as  "  Jonah  the  son  of  Amittai  the  prophet,  ...  of  Gath- 
hepher,"8  who  is  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xiv,  25,  in  which  it  is  stated 
that  Jeroboam  II.  (B.  C.  825-784)  restored  the  coast  of  Israel  ac 
cording  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  this  prophet.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  this  statement,  all  that  we  know  about  him  depends  on  the 
book  that  bears  his  name. 

This  prophecy  contains  an  account  of  Jonah's  being  sent  by  the 
Lord  to  preach  to  the  Ninevites,  his  refusal  to  go,  his  taking  ship  for 
Tarshish,  the  storm,  his  being  thrown  overboard  by  the  sailors  to 
assuage  it,  his  being  swallowed  by  a  sea  monster,  his  restoration  to 
land,  his  obedience  to  the  second  summons  to  declare  to  the  Nin- 

1  Introduction,  vol.  i,  pp.  390,  391.  *  Hebrew,  ntf  \  A  dove. 

8  The  same  as  Gittah-hepher  (Josh,  xix,  13),  a  city  of  Zebulun. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  431 

evites  that  in  forty  days  their  city  should  be  ovei  thrown,  their  re 
pentance,  and  Jonah's  anger. 

CHARACTER   AND    DESIGN   OF   THE   BOOK. 

This  book  is  wholly  unlike  any  other  book  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  its  history,  and  in  the  singularity  of  Jonah's  mission ;  and  it  is  ac 
cordingly  not  at  all  strange  that  it  should  give  offence  even  to  critics 
who  are  not  especially  skeptical,  and  that  the  most  widely  diverging 
views  have  been  taken  of  it.  Some  few  skeptics  have  produced  two 
heathen  myths,  those  of  Hesione  and  Andromeda,  as  parallels  to 
the  account  of  Jonah  being  preserved  in  the  belly  of  a  fish,  and 
have  supposed  that  some  connexion  exists  between  them  and  this 
event  in  the  life  of  Jonah.  One  of  these  is  found  in  Ovid's  Meta 
morphoses,  xi,  211-220,  and  in  Diodorus  Siculus,  iv,  42.  The  other 
in  Ovid's  Metamorphoses,  iv,  670-739,  and  is,  perhaps,  nothing  more 
than  a  variation  of  the  preceding.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  what 
connexion  these  myths  have  with  the  history  of  Jonah.  The  idea 
that  a  Jewish  writer  would  work  up  a  heathen  myth  is  so  improbable 
that  it  should  be  rejected  at  once. 

Nor  should  the  idea  that  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  pure  fiction  find 
much  favour;  as  it  was  utterly  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews  to  invent  such  histories.  De  Wette1  observes,  that  "it  is 
probable  that  the  material  of  the  book  was  derived  from  g^  of  jonat, 
the  traditions  among  the  people  and  the  prophets;  for  DO  fiction, 
narratives  of  that  kind  in  antiquity  were  not  pure  inventions.  But 
whether  real  facts,  and  what  ones  out  of  the  history  of  Jonah,  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  the  book,  cannot  be  shown  either  from  the  thanks 
giving  hymn,  chap,  ii,  3,^".,  and  from  Tobit  xiv,  4,  or  ascertained 
by  an  arbitrary  dissection  of  the  materials." 

Bunsen  supposed  that  the  thanksgiving  hymn  of  Jonah  (chapter 
ii,  2-1  o)  was  a  genuine  production  of  that  prophet,  who  composed  it 
upon  his  being  saved  from  the  sea ;  and  that  this  hymn,  being  mis 
understood,  furnished  the  occasion  for  representing  the  history  of 
Jonah  in  the  form  in  which  we  find  it.  Upon  the  basis  of  this  song 
Bunsen  attempted  to  restore  what  he  deemed  to  be  the  real  facts, 
though,  as  Bleek  thinks,  unsuccessfully.  This  latter  writer,  while  ad 
mitting  that  the  author  of  the  book  may  possibly  have  found  something 
in  tradition  which  he  followed,  yet,  in  denying  that  the  book  has  an 
historical  aim,  though  a  purely  didactic  one,  seems  to  deprive  it  of  all 
historical  foundation  whatever.2 

"It  is  possible,"  says  Davidson,1  "  that  a  true  prophetic  tradition 

1  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  462.  'Einleitung,  pp.  569-579. 

1  Introduction,  vol.  iii,  279,  280. 


432  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

The  opinion  of  may  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  book.  Jonah  may  have 
prophesied  to  the  Ninevites,  and  various  particulars  re 
specting  his  mission  may  either  have  been  written  by  himself  or 
handed  down  orally.  .  .  .  We  consider  the  much  greater  part  of  the 
book  fictitious.  A  historical  germ  formed  the  foundation  on  which 
the  writer  worked." 

The  book  has  been  held  to  be  a  didactic  fiction  by  Semler,  Herder, 
Michaelis,  Staudlin,  and  others.  Hermann  Van  der  Hardt,  Less, 
and  others,  regard  the  book  as  a  historical  allegory;  while  Jahn 
and  Pareau  consider  it  a  parable,  and  Gramberg  and  F.  C.  Baur, 
a  poetical  myth;  and  Abarbanel,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  "relying 
upon  what  is  said  of  Jonah's  falling  asleep  in  the  ship,  wished  the 
narrative  about  the  fish  that  swallowed  him  to  be  taken  for  a  dream." 
On  the  other  hand,  the  book  has  been  earnestly  defended  by  Lilien- 
thal,  Hess,  Luderwald,  Piper,  Steudel,  Sack,  Havernick,  Baum- 
garten,  Stuart,  Delitzsch,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  and  others. 

Keil  expresses  himself  strongly  in  favour  of  the  historical  charac 
ter  of  the  book.  "Its  contents,"  says  he,  "  are  neither  pure  fiction, 
allegory,  nor  myth ;  nor  yet  a  prophetic  legend,  wrought  up  poet 
ically  with  a  moral  or'  didactic  aim,  embellished  into  a  miraculous 
story,  and  mingled  with  mythical  elements  ;  but,  with  all  its  miracles, 
it  is  to  be  taken  for  a  true  history  of  deep  prophetico-symbolic  and 
Defenders  of  typi0^  significance."  '  Delitzsch  characterizes  the  book 
the  authentic-  as  "  a  confession  of  sin  written  down  by  the  corrected 
ity  of  Jonah.  prOphet  under  a  deep  feeling  of  shame  and  godly  self- 
denial,  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  incorporated 
with  the  prophetic  writings  for  this  reason,  that  Jonah,  prophesying 
there  in  a  manner  contrary  to  his  own  wishes,  was  a  type  of  Christ 
who  was  to  come,  in  and  through  whom  alone  believers,  even  of  the 
Old  Testament  age  (Jonah  iii,  5),  have  a  share  in  grace."3 

The  book  was  regarded  by  the  ancient  Jews  and  Christians  as  real 
history.  In  the  Book  of  Tobit,  which  was,  in  all  probability,  written 
some  centuries  before  Christ,  and  evidently  in  Hebrew,  Tobit  de 
clares  that  he  believes  "what  the  Prophet  Jonah  said  concerning 
Nineveh,  that  it  shall  be  destroyed  "  (chap,  xiv,  4) ;  and  again,  re 
specting  this  city,  "that  certainly  those  things  will  come  to  pass 
which  Jonah  the  Prophet  spoke  "  (chap,  xiv,  8). 

In  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel 3  on  the  Prophet  Nahum,  it 
is  said  that  Jonah  the  Prophet,  the  son  of  Amittai,  prophesied  against 
Nineveh.  Josephus4  gives  an  account  of  Jonah,  taken  almost  ex 
clusively  from  this  book,  and  adds :  "  I  have  narrated  the  account 

'Introduction,  vol  i,  p.  395,  in  Clark's  For.  Theol.  Lib.         'Ibid.,  p.  398. 
'Made  about  the  time  of  Christ.  4Antiq.,  ix,  10, 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  433 

concerning  him  as  I  have  found  it  written."  In  the  time  of  the 
Talmudists  l  the  book  was  regarded  as  historical. 

The  book  does  not  profess  to  be  written  by  Jonah.  The  first  per 
son  is  nowhere  used  except  in  the  psalm  of  thanksgiving.  The  lan 
guage  of  the  book  seems  to  belong  to  a  quite  late  period.  The  use 
of  hv  for  TI?{*,  which,  in  the  phrase  'oWi.  because  of  whom  (chap,  i,  7), 

t  T  -»  •   :  T   i 

and  in  ^Bra,  on  my  account*  belongs  to  late  Hebrew.  Dj;o,  mandate^ 
decree  (Jonah  iii,  7),  is  from  the  Chaldee ;  nrsc,  shipy  is  the  same 
as  Syriac  and  Arabic  ;  natw,  to  suffer  shipwreck  (chap,  i,  4),  is  found 

elsewhere  in  this  sense  (Ezekiel  xxvii,  34;  2  Chronicles  _ 

x    .          Peculiarities  of 
xx>  37) »  t'VTI,  in  the  sense  to  remove  (chap,  in,  6),  be-  the    language 

longs  to  late  Hebrew.  f?m,  a  walk,  way  (chap,  iii,  3,  4), 
is  also  a  late  Hebrew  word  ;  and  ni^nn,  to  think  upon  (chap,  i,  6),  is  the 
same  as  the  Chaldee.  But  if  the  book  was  written  by  Jonah,  it  wus 
composed  at  least  as  early  as  about  B.  C.  825.  The  language  seems 
altogether  inconsistent  with  such  an  early  date,  and  would  indicate 
a  period  just  before,  or  very  soon  after,  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
Respecting  Jewish  tradition  in  reference  to  the  author  of  the  book, 
Fiirst  remarks :  "  Since,  with  the  exception  of  the  inserted  prayer, 
nothing  indicates  that  the  prophet  himself  composed  it — as  it  for 
the  most  part  is  only  a  narrative  respecting  Jonah — in  the  Tal- 
mudic  period  the  question  respecting  its  author  was  left  altogether 
undecided."8 

The  writer's  aim  seems  to  be  didactic:  to  show,  first  of  all,  the  folly 
of  disobeying  God  when  one  is  called  to  perform  import-  The  writer's 
ant  work ;  but  especially  to  set  forth  in  a  conspicuous  Pun>ose. 
manner  the  greatness  of  the  Divine  mercy  to  all  men  who  repent  of 
their  sins,  though  they  may  not  be  of  the  covenant  people.  In  con 
trast  with  this,  the  purpose  is  to  show  in  a  striking  way  the  narrow 
ness  of  the  soul  of  the  prophet,  who  preferred  that  all  the  inhabitants 
of  this  great  city,  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  should  be  cut  off, 
rather  than  that  a  doubt  should  be  cast  upon  the  reality  of  his 
prophetic  mission. 

The  tone  of  the  book  stands  out  in  marked  contrast  with  the  nar 
row  and  exclusive  spirit  of  the  Jews,  and  approximates  the  liberality 
of  Christianity.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  history  of  such  a  mis 
sion  3  to  Nineveh  could  have  arisen  had  it  not  been  based  upon  a 
well-authenticated  fact.  Nor  would  the  book  have  been  admitted 
among  the  prophets  if  there  had  been  any  serious  doubts  about  the 
truth  of  that  mission.  We  have  still  other  grounds  for  holding  fast 

^eber  den  Kanon,  p.  33.  'Ibid  ,  p.  33. 

*In  Ezek.  iii,  5,  6  there  is  a  not  improbable  reference  to  this  mission 

VOL.  I.— 28 


434  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE   STUDY 

to  the  reality  of  the  mission  of  Jonah  to  the  Ninevites.  Christ  refers 
to  this  in  such  a  way  that  he  must  have  regarded  it  as  a  fact.  "  The 
men  of  Nineveh,"  says  he,  "  shall  rise  in  the  judgment  with  this  gen 
eration,  and  shall  condemn  it :  because  they  repented  at  the  preach 
ing  of  Jonah  ;  and,  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here."  *  He  says 
further:  "As  Jonah  was  a  sign  to  the  Ninevites,  so  shall  also  the 
Son  of  man  be  to  this  generation."  ''  Or,  as  it  stands  in  Matthew  xii, 
39,  40  .  u  There  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet 
Jonah :  for  as  Jonah  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  whale's 
(KJJTOC,  shark,  whale,  etc.)  belly,  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."1 

THE    PROPHET    MICAH.4 

This  prophet  was  a  native  of  Moresheth,  a  town  in  Judah,  about 
thirty  miles  south-west  from  Jerusalem.  He  prophesied  conceining 
Samaria  and  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah, 
kings  of  Judah.  He  seems  to  have  spent  his  time  for  the  most 
part  in  Judah,  but  must  have  also  visited  the  ten  tribes  when  he  de 
livered  his  prophecy  respecting  them.  He  is  mentioned  in  Jeremiah 
xxvi,  1 8  as  "  Micah  the  Morasthite,"  who  prophesied  in  the  days  of 
Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  respecting  the  utter  desolation  of  Jeru 
salem. 

Chapters  i-iii  contain  prophecies  directed  to  Samaria  and  Judah, 
threatening  them  with  the  judgments  of  God  on  account  of  the  sins 
of  the  people.  Chapters  iv,  v  refer  chiefly  to  the  Messiah,  and  to 
the  prosperity  of  Israel  under  his  reign.  Chapters  vi,  vii  describe 
true  religion,  rebuke  the  wickedness  of  the  people,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  encourage  them  to  look  to  God  for  pardon. 

THE   DATE   OF   HIS  PROPHECY. 

Although  Micah  states  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  in 
the  days  of  Jotham,  Ahaz.  and  Hezekiah,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 


'Matt,  xii,  41.    Lukexi,  32  has  the  same  passage.  "Luke  xi,  30. 

3  The  passage  in  which  mention  is  made  of  Jonah  being  in  the  whale's  belly  is 
found  only  in  Matt,  xii,  40.  In  the  allusion  to  Jonah  it  is  omitted  by  Luke  (xi,  30-32.) 
Neander  thinks  that  the  reference  in  Matt,  xii,  40  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  "  is 
quite  foreign  to  the  original  sense  and  connexion  of  the  passage,"  and  that  "th« 
verse  in  question  is  a  commentary  by  a  later  hand." — Life  of  Christ,  pp.  245,  246^ 
M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal's  Trans.  It  is  true  that  the  verse  seems  out  of  place 
but  we  have  no  sufficient  authority  for  its  rejection. 

Who  as  Jehovah? 


OF   THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  435 

iLzu  ttie  prophecies  were  written  down  at  various  times  during  a 
period  of  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  but  rather  that  his  book  gives 
the  substance  of  the  prophecies  which  he  delivered  at  different  times 
and  afterward  wrote  down.  Thus  the  question  is,  When  did  he 
compose  the  book  ?  It  must  have  been  before  the  capture  of  Sa 
maria  and  the  removal  of  the  ten  tribes;  for  we  find  in  chap,  vi,  16 
the  complaint  that  "  the  statutes  of  Omri  are  kept,  and  all  the  works 
of  the  house  of  Ahab."  From  the  whole  tone  of  the  book  it  is  evi 
dent  that  at  the  time  of  its  composition  Samaria  was  not  yet  cap 
tured.  But  this  event  occurred  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  B.C.  721.  According  to  Jeremiah  xxvi,  18  the  prophecy 
contained  in  Micah  iii,  12,  respecting  the  utter  desolation  of  Jerusa 
lem,  was  delivered  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  The  book,  therefore, 
must  have  been  composed  between  the  first  and  sixth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  B.  C.  727-721. 

Respecting  the  character  of  his  prophetic  style,  Keil  says :  "  The 
prophetic  discourse  of  Micah  is  like  Isaiah's  in  the  boldness  and  lofti 
ness  of  the  thought;  in  the  rounding  off,  the  clearness  and  the  liveli 
ness  of  the  representation;  in  the  wealth  of  imagery  and  compari 
sons  (chaps,  i,  8,  16 ;  ii,  12,  13;  iv,  9,  10,  etc.),  and  other  rhetorical 
figures,  such  as  individualizing,  dialogue  (chaps,  vi,  1-8 ;  vii,  7-20), 
paronomasia,  and  play  upon  words  (specially  accumulated  at  chap. 
i,  10-15).  Yet  he  is  distinguished  from  him  by  quick  and  sudden 
changes  from  threatening  to  promise,  and  the  reverse  (chapters  ii, 
12,  13;  iv,  9-14;  vii,  1 1,  „#".),  which  remind  us  of  Hosea.  The  dic 
tion  soars  poetically,  and  is  rhythmically  rounded  off;  and  the  lan 
guage  is  classically  pure."  * 


THE    PROPHET   NAHUM.1 

The  book  bears  the  inscription,  '*  The  oracle  respecting  Nineveh  ; 
the  book  of  the  vision  of  Nahum  the  Elkoshite."  Apart  from  his 
prophecy  nothing  is  known  of  him,  and  there  has  been  a  dispute  even 
respecting  the  place,  Elkosh,  where  he  was  born  ;  some  regarding  it 
as  a  town  of  Galilee;  others  as  the  village  El-ktish,  near  Mosul. 
Jerome  8  mentions  the  ruins  of  a  village  in  Galilee  by  the  name  of 
Elcesi  ('tySx),  pointed  out  to  him  by  a  guide.  Ftirst4  remarks  that 


1  Introduction,  vol.  i,  p.  405,  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological  Library. 
*fi^in3,  Consolation. 

'  Preface  to  Nahum.     He  also  remarks  that  some  think  that  his  father  was  EU 
ur«j,  who,  according  to  the  Hebrew  tradition,  was  himself  a  prophet 
*  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  36. 


436  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

the  tradition  that  his  birth-place,  Elkosh,  was  Elcesi  in  Galikc,  and 
not  Elkesh  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Tigris,  has  much  in  its  favour ; 
and  that  his  abode  was  probably  Capernaum  (Kefar-Nachum),  named 
after  the  prophet. 

The  prophecy  refers  to  one  subject,  the  ruin  of  Nineveh.  In  pre 
paring  the  way  for  the  prediction  of  its  overthrow  the  prophet  dwell? 
upon  the  attributes  of  God — that  he  is  zealous  and  avengeth,  reserv 
ing  wrath  for  his  enemies ;  irresistible  in  power ;  slow  to  anger  , 
good ;  and  a  stronghold  in  the  day  of  trouble.  After  this  he  proceeds 
to  describe  the  wickedness  and  corruption  of  Nineveh,  and  the 
dreadful  fate  that  awaits  her  on  account  of  her  wickedness  (chaps. 
i-iii). 

DATE    OF    COMPOSITION. 

It  is  clear  from  the  language  of  the  book  that  when  it  was  com 
posed  Nineveh  was  still  standing.  This  great  city,  according  to 
Herodotus,  was  captured  by  Cyaxares  and  the  Medes  (chap,  i,  106). 
The  following  account  of  the  capture  and  destruction  of  Nineveh  is 
given  by  George  Smith :  "  A  coalition  of  Necho,  king  of  Egypt, 
Cyaxares,  king  of  Media,  and  Nabopolassar,  king  of  Babylon,  was 
formed  against  Assyria,  and  the  Medes  and  Babylonians,  after  de 
feating  the  Assyrian  forces,  laid  siege  to  Nineveh.  The  lofty  walls 
of  the  city  long  resisted  their  efforts,  but  after  two  years  there  hap 
pened  a  great  overflow  of  the  Tigris,  which  swept  away  part  of  the 
wall  of  the  city.  Through  the  breach  the  besiegers  entered,  on  the 
subsiding  of  the  flood,  and  captured  the  city.  The  last  king  of  As 
syria,  finding  his  city  was  taken,  made  a  pile  of  all  his  valuables  in 
the  palace,  and,  setting  fire  to  it,  perished  himself  in  the  flames. 
The  city  was  now  plundered  and  at  once  destroyed ;  it  did  not 
gradually  decay,  like  Babylon,  but  from  the  time  of  its  capture  it 
ceased  to  have  any  political  importance,  and  its  site  became  almost 
forgotten."1  This  was  about  B.  C.  607,  as  the  reign  of  the  last  king 
of  Nineveh,  as  given  by  Smith,  is  B.  C.  620-607. a 

As  the  date  of  the  prophecy  cannot  be  later  than  B.  C.  607,  it 
cannot  be  earlier  than  about  B.  C.  665.  It  is  clear  from  Nahum  iii, 
8-1 1  that  Thebes  (No)  was  already  led  away  captive.  In  Smith's 
translation  3  of  the  history  of  Assurbanipal  from  the  columns  of  Nin 
eveh,  this  monarch  states  that  in  his  second  expedition  to  Egypt 
and  Ethiopia  "the  spoil,  great  and  unnumbered,  I  carried  off  from 
the  midst  of  Thebes."  His  history  is  recorded  from  B.C.  671  to 

1  Assyrian  Discoveries,  1873,  1874,  pp.  93,  94.  "Ibid.,  p.  447. 

"Ibid.,  p.  329. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  437 

B.  C.  645  ;  and  as  he  made  many  expeditions  to  different  nations, 
this  second  expedition  to  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  was  in  all  proba 
bility  alout  five  years,  or  something  more,  from  the  beginning  of  his 
reign. 

THE  PROPHETIC  STYLE  OF  THE  BOOK. 

^  It  is  distinguished  for  beauty,  originality,  regularity  and  purity  of 
diction,  and  belongs  to  the  very  best  class  of  the  prophetic  writings. 


. 


THE    PROPHET    HABAKKUIT.1 

The  title  of  the  book  is,  "  The  Oracle  which  Habakkuk  the 
Prophet  saw."  Nothing  is  known  of  the  personal  history  of  this 
prophet,  and  his  name  nowhere  occurs  in  Jewish  history2  outside 
of  his  book.  In  his  prophecy  he  gives  us  no  information  respecting 
himself. 

The  book  consists  of  two  parts  —  a  prophecy,  and  a  prayer,  or  psalm. 
The  prophetic  part  is  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  Jehovah  and 
the  prophet,  in  which  the  wickedness  of  men  and  the  holiness  of 
God  are  discussed.  In  this  prophecy  the  Jews  are  threatened  with 
destruction  from  the  Chaldeans  (chaps,  i,  ii).  The  prayer  or  psalm 
is  a  sublime  description  of  the  exhibition  of  divine  power  in  the 
exodus  of  the  Israelites  (chap.  iii).  In  its  grandeur  and  beauty  it 
is  surpassed  by  nothing  in  the  Old  Testament. 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  DELIVERY  OF  THE  PROPHECY. 
As  Habakkuk  announces  that  the  Chaldeans  are  to  be  raised  up 
against  the  Jewish  people  —  an  event  which  was  so  strange  as  to  be 
incredible  —  it  is  clear  that  at  the  time  of  this  announcement  the 
Chaldean  power  was  not  at  all  threatening,  and  that  Babylon  was  a 
secondary  power  in  the  Assyrian  dominion.  Since  the  Chaldeans 
were  to  be  raised  up  in  the  lifetime3  of  the  prophet's  contempo 
raries,  the  prophecy  was  probably  written  twenty  or  thirty  years 
before  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin,  about  B.  C.  620  or  630.  Fiirst 
remarks  that  the  Talmudic  tradition  placed  the  beginning  of  the 
?D,  Embrace. 


3  In  the  superscription  to  the  Apocryphal  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  in  the 
Codex  Chisi  of  the  LXX,  and  ia  the  Syrian-hexapla  version  made  from  it,  it  is 
stated  that  Habakkuk  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  In  this  Apocryphal  story  an  angel 
is  represented  as  taking  Habakkuk  by  the  hair  of  his  head,  and  transporting  him 
to  Babylon,  to  aid  Daniel.  All  of  these  statements  are  equally  unfounded. 

3This  must  be  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  "I  will  work  a  work  in  your 
days." 


438  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 

prophecies  of  Habakkuk  in  the  latter  part  of  Manasseh's  reign 
(B.  C.  645-641  ).1  Bleeka  refers  the  prophecy  to  the  reign  of  Jehoi- 
akim  (B.  C.  610-599).  He  thinks  the  last  chapter  may  have  been 
written  somewhat  later  than  the  prophecy.  De  Wette8  thinks  that 
chapter  i,  5,  etc.,  points  certainly  to  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  and  that 
chapter  iii  does  not  demand  a  later  date.  We  see  no  good  reason  for 
supposing  that  chapter  iii  was  written  at  a  later  period  than  chapters 
i  and  ii. 

THE    PROPHET    ZEPHANIAH.4 

This  prophet  delivered  his  oracles,  as  he  himself  informs  us,  in 
the  days  of  Josiah,  son  of  Ammon,  king  of  Judah,  whose  reign  falls 
B.  C.  641-610.  He  was  the  great-grandson  of  Amariah,  who  was 
the  son  of  Hezekiah  (chap,  i,  i).  According  to  a  Jewish4  tradition 
this  Hezekiah  was  no  other  than  the  distinguished  Jewish  king. 
And  this  would  seem  probable  from  the  fact  that  the  name  stands 
back  as  far  as  the  fourth  generation.  There  is  no  reason  for  this 
except  the  hypothesis  that  this  ancestor  was  a  man  of  distinction. 
Certainly  he  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  most  probably 
lived  in  Jerusalem. 

The  prophecy  opens  with  the  denunciation  of  terrible  judgments 
from  God  upon  Judah  and  Jerusalem  for  idolatry  and  universal 
wickedness  (chaps,  i,  ii,  3).  Severe  judgments  are  next  denounced 
upon  the  Philistines,  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Ethiopians,  and  Assyria 
and  Nineveh  (chap,  ii,  4-15).  After  this  the  prophet  returns  to  Je 
rusalem,  and  describes  the  wickedness  of  the  people,  prophets  and 
priests  and  closes  with  promises  of  happiness  to  Israel  in  the  future, 
in  which  he  evidently  refers  to  Messianic  times  (chap.  iii). 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  PROPHECY. 

According  to  a  tradition  of  the  Jews,"  Zephaniah  prophesied  in 
the  time  between  B.C.  627,  before  the  reform  of  divine  worship  had 
been  made  by  Josiah,  when  the  book  of  the  law  was  discovered  in 
the  temple,  and  B.  C.  621,  when  that  reformation  of  worship  was 
completed.  De  Wette7  refers  the  prophecy  to  the  first  years  of  Jo 
siah 's  reign.  Bleek  thinks  that  it  was  composed  probably  before  the 
eighteenth  year  of  that  monarch's  reign,  as  there  is  no  mention  in  it 
of  the  reforms  instituted  by  him." 

1  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  30.  •  Einleitung,  p.  545. 

•In  De  Wette— Schrader,  p.  470.  'H^BS,  Whom  'Jehovah protect*. 

*  In  Fiirst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  38.  '  Fiirs't,  p.  38. 

'Page  472.  •Page  548. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  433 

According  to  2  Chron.  xxxiv,  3,  Josiah  began  his  reforms  in  his 
twelfth  year.  And  it  would  seem  from  chap,  i,  4,  where  it  is  stated, 
"  I  will  cut  off  the  remnant  of  Baal  from  this  place,"  that  Josiah  had 
already  begun  his  reforms.  In  chap,  i,  8  it  is  said,  "  I  will  punish 
the  king's  children."  This,  in  all  probability,  refers  to  the  sons  of 
the  reigning  monarch,  and  to  them  as  already  born.  But  as  Josiah 
was  only  eight  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  it  is  not  probable 
that  he  had  sons  before  he  was  more  than  twenty  years  of  age. 
Upon  the  whole,  we  think  the  prophecy  was  written  some  time 
before  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jpsiah's  reign,  or  about  B.  C.  630.  It 
is  evident  from  the  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  that 
that  city  was  still  standing.  But  Nineveh  was  destroyed  B.C.  607.' 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROPHECY. 

It  is  by  no  means  distinguished  for  boldness  and  originality.  In 
the  prophecy  of  the  desolation  of  Nineveh  Nahum  had  already  led 
the  way.  Some  of  Zephaniah's  descriptions,  as  chapters  ii,  14,  15, 
iii,  1 6,  17,  are  borrowed  from,  or  based  on,  Isaiah.  It  occasionally 
contains  paronomasias.  Its  language,  however,  is  pure.  Bleek  re 
marks  that  the  prophecy  is  remarkable  for  containing  a  prediction 
of  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  nations,  even  of  those  who  execute 
the  divine  judgments  upon  Israel.2 

THE    PROPHET    HAGGAI.' 

This  prophet  states  very  definitely  that  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came  to  him  on  the  first  day  of  the  sixth  month  of  the  second  year 
of  the  reign  of  Darius  (Hystaspes),  B.  C.  520.  All  the  other  dates 
which  he  gives  for  the  divine  communications  belong  also  to  the 
second  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius.  Apart  from  this  book,  our 
prophet  is  mentioned  in  Ezra  v,  i,  2  as  prophesying  to  the  Jews 
while  they  were  rebuilding  the  temple,  after  the  return  from  Baby 
lon  in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  and  as  helping  Zerubbabel  and 
Joshua  in  their  work. 

The  book  consists  of  four  communications  made  by  the  prophet 
in  the  second  year  of  Darius;  the  first  to  the  people,  declaring 
that  the  failure  of  their  crops  is  owing  to  their  having  failed  to 
rebuild  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  that  the  pleasure  and  presence 
of  Jehovah  will  attend  them  in  performing  this  work.  Th~  second 

1  The  last  king  of  Nineveh.  Assurebil-ili,  reigned  from  B.  C.  620-607.  See  Smith's 
Assyrian  Discoveries,  1873,  1874,  p.  447. 
8  EinUitung,  p.   549. 


440  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

communication,  made  likewise  to  the  whole  people,  in  which  they 
are  assured  that  this  second  temple,  though  inferior  in  splendour  to 
the  first,  shall  have  greater  glory  than  it,  and  that  Jehovah  will  shake 
all  nations,  and  the  most  excellent  of  the  nations1  shall  come  (to  it), 
and  the  house  shall  be  filled  with  glory.  The  third  communication 
is  addressed  to  the  priests,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  the  unclean- 
ness  of  the  people  is  the  ground  of  the  failure  of  their  crops.  The 
fourth  communication  is  made  to  Zerubbabel,  in  which  God  de 
clares  that  he  will  overthrow  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  but  prom 
ises  that  Zerubbabel  shall  be  made  as  a  signet,  by  which  the  Jewish 
governor  seems  to  be  a  type  of  Christ. 


THE    PROPHET    ZECHARIAH.8 

This  prophet  calls  himself  the  son  of  Barachiah,  the  son  of  Iddo. 
It  is  clear  from  Neh.  xii,  16  that  he  was  a  priest,  and  that  he  went 
up  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  with  Zerubbabel.  In  Ezra  v,  i,  2 
he  is  mentioned  as  prophesying  along  with  Haggai,  and  aiding  in 
the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.  In  this  passage  he  is  called  simply 
the  son  of  Iddo.  This  is  done  either  for  brevity,  or,  what  is  more 
probable,  because  his  father  was  already  dead  when  Ezra  wrote,  and 
his  grandfather  was  his  nearest  living  ancestor.  He  states  in  the 
beginning  of  his  prophecy  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto 
him  in  the  eighth  month  of  the  second  year  of  Darius.  Besides 
this,  he  gives  two  other  dates  of  divine  communications — the  twenty- 
fourth  day  of  the  eleventh  month,  in  the  same  year  (chap,  i,  7), 
and  the  fourth  day  of  the  ninth  month  of  the  fourth  year  of  Darius 
(chap,  vii,  i).  He  was  a  young  man  (v^)  when  called  to  the  pro 
phetic  office  (chap,  ii,  4). 

This  book  may  be  appropriately  divided  into  four  sections.  The 
first  (chaps,  i-vi)  contains  eight  visions,  setting  forth  the  provi 
dence  of  God  and  his  special  care  over  Israel.  The  design  heie  is, 
to  encourage  the  Jewish  people  to  rebuild  the  temple  and  Jerusalem, 
and  to  inspire  them  with  hope  for  the  future.  The  second  section 
(chaps,  vii,  viii)  contains  no  visions,  but  abounds  in  exhortations  to 
perform  the  practical  duties  of  religion,  and  gives  promises  of  future 
happiness  and  prosperity  to  the  Jews.  The  third  section  (chaps, 
x-xi)  contains  prophecies  pertaining  chiefly  to  Israel.  In  chap,  ix, 
9,  10  the  Messiah  is  promised.  The  fourth  section  (chap,  xii-xiv)  con- 

1  The  English  version  of  Hag.  ii,  7,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  Hebrew,  which  is 
literally,  "  And  they  shall  come,  the  excellent  of  the  nations."     There  seemf.  to  be 
no  direct  reference  to  the  Messiah  in  this  passage. 
n""i«t.     \Vkom   *7chovaJi  remembers. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  441 

tains  prophecies  respecting  Judah  and  Jerusalem  and  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  and  the  judgments  that  shall  overtake  the  enemies  of  Jeru 
salem. 

GENUINENESS   OF   CHAPTERS    IX-XIV. 

In  modern  times  the  genuineness  of  chapters  ix-xiv  has  been  vio 
lently  assailed,  and  they  have  been  attributed  by  the  most  of  their 
imjmgners  to  two  different  writers,  living  at  different  periods  before 
the  Babylonian  captivity.  Some,  indeed,  have  placed  them  in  the 
time  of  Alexander,  others  in  that  of  the  Maccabees. 

The  first  doubt,  so  far  as  we  know,  about  the  genuineness  of 
chapters  ix-xi  was  expressed  by  an  Englishman,  Joseph  Mede,  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  on  the  ground  that  the  passage  in  chap, 
xi,  n,  12  is  quoted  in  Matt,  xxvii,  9,  10  as  the  language  of  Jere 
miah,  and  because  the  three  chapters  out  of  which  the  quotation  is 
made  are  closely  connected.  He  accordingly  attributed  them  to 
Jeremiah.  In  the  next  century  Whiston  and  other  Englishmen 
followed  him ;  and  they  in  turn  were  succeeded  by  Doderlein,  who 
attributed  the  six  chapters  (ix-xiv)  to  that  prophet.  Since  Objections 
that  time  many  German  scholars,  relying  upon  internal  Mede,wiiiston, 
grounds,  have  refused  to  attribute  these  last  six  chap-  a 
ters  to  Zechariah.  Among  these  may  be  named  Bertholdt,  Eich- 
horn,  Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Knobel,  Bunsen,  Bleek,  and 
Schrader.  On  the  other  hand,  the  genuineness  of  these  chapters 
has  been  defended  by  Koster,  Jahn,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick, 
Keil,  Stahelin,  and  others.  De  Wette,  in  the  first  three  editions  of 
his  "  Introduction,"  denied  their  genuineness,  but  in  the  fourth  and 
subsequent  editions  he  acknowledged  it.  Schrader  holds  that  chaps 
ix-xi  belong-to  a  prophet  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.y 
and  that  chaps,  xii-xiv  fall  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  the 
Babylonian  captivity.  To  about  the  same  periods  they  are  assigned 
by  Bleek  and  others. 

In  respect  to  chaps,  ix-xi,  it  is  urged  that  they  must  have  been 
composed  when  both  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel  still  existed 
ir.  contiguity  as  parts  of  the  covenant  people,1  and  when  the  people 
still  stood  under  the  dominion  of  kings ;  and  that  chap,  xi,  8  seems 
to  refer  to  times  of  anarchy  following  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II.  in 
Israel.  In  chap,  ix,  13  it  is  said,  "When  I  have  bent  Judah  for  me, 
filled  the  bow  with  Ephraim,"  etc.;  and  in  chap,  x,  6,  7,  "I  will 
strengthen  the  house  of  Judah,  and  I  will  save  the  house  of  Joseph. 
They  of  Ephraim  shall  be  like  a  mighty  man,"  etc. ;  and  in  chap, 
xi,  14,  "  Then  I  cut  asunder  mine  other  staff,  even  Bands,  that  I 
might  break  the  brotherhood  between  Judah  and  Israel."  But  it 
'So  Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  559. 


442  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

cannot  be  shown  from  these  references  to  Judah  and  Israel  that  the 
prophecy  was  written  before  the  ten  tribes  were  carried  away  into 
captivity  (B.  C.  721);  for  there  is  no  reference  to  these  tribes  as  be 
ing  in  Palestine,  or  to  their  capital,  Samaria.  On  the  contrary,  it 
would  appear  from  chap,  x,  6  that  the  house  of  Joseph  had  already 
gone  into  captivity;  and  the  same  may  be  said  respecting  Ephraim 
in  the  following  verses  (7,  8).  In  the  passage,  "  I  will  cut  off  the  char- 
iot  from  Ephraim,  and  the  hofse  from  Jerusalem  "  (chap,  ix,  10).  ref 
erence  is  made  to  the  peaceable  reign  of  the  Messiah,  whose  kingdom 
shall  extend  "from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  The  other 
reference  to  Judah  and  Ephraim  (chap,  ix,  13)  is  also  prophetic. 

Jeremiah  uses  the  following  language :  "  Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  sow  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of 
Judah  with  the  seed  of  man,"  etc.  (chap,  xxxi,  27);  and,  "Behold, 
the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with 
the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah  "  (chap,  xxxi,  31). 
But  notwithstanding  these  references  to  the  house  of  Israel,  the  ten 
tribes,  had  gone  into  captivity  more  tha.*  a  hundred  years  before 
this.  In  Jer.  xxxi,  18-20  there  is  a  still  clearer  illustration  of  the  pas 
sages  in  Zechariah  under  discussion  :  "  I  have  surely  heard  Ephraim 
bemoaning  himself  ...  Is  Ephraim  my  dear  son  ?  is  he  a  pleasant 
child  ?  "  In  spite  of  this,  he  had  long  since  gone  into  captivity. 

In  Obadiah  18  it  is  said:  "And  the  house  of  Jacob  shall  be  a 
.    fire,  and  the  house  of  Joseph  a  flame."    Notwithstanding 
dence of genu-   this   reference   to   the   "house   of  Joseph,"    Bleek   and 
ineness.  Schrader  think  that  Obadiah  was  written  after  the  de 

struction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  reference  to  Judah 
and  Israel,  in  chap,  xi,  14,  refers  apparently  to  a  historical  fact.  In 
chap,  ix,  5  it  is  said,  "  the  king  shall  perish  from  Gaza ;  "  but  this 
does  not  imply  a  period  preceding  the  Babylonian  captivity,  for 
when  Alexander  the  Great  laid  siege  to  Gaza,  about  two  hundred 
years  after  the  time  of  Zechariah,  the  city  was  governed  by  a  eunuch 
named  Batis.1  The  Hebrew  word  f?3,  king,  often  means  the  ruler 
of  a  single  city,  a  satrap,  or  a  petty  despot. 

Hamath  is  also  mentioned  in  chap,  ix,  2,  and  although  it  may 
have  been  destroyed  centuries  before  the  time  of  Zechariah  (Isa. 
xxxvi,  19),  yet  it  is  evident  that  it  was  afterward  rebuilt,  for  it  is  men 
tioned  by  Jeremiah  (chap,  xlix,  23)  as  being  inhabited  in  his  ume.  In 
chap,  xi,  8  it  is  said,  "  Three  shepherds  also  I  cut  off  in  one  month  " 
Bleek  supposes  the  reference  here  to  be  to  three  kings :  Zachariah, 
the  son  of  Jeroboam  II.,  who  reigned  six  months;  Shallum,  who 
reigned  one  full  month  (2  Kings  xv,  8-15);  and  some  unknown 
1  Arrian's  Expedition  of  Alexander,  lib.  ii,  25. 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  443 

usurper,  who  may  have  maintained  his  authority  for  only  a  few 
weeks.  But  it  could  not  be  well  said  that  three  were  cut  off  in  one 
month,  for  Menahem,  who  succeeded  Shallum,  reigned  ten  years, 
and  ve  have  no  right  to  interpolate  another  king  without  a  particle 
of  proof  of  his  existence.  The  three  shepherds  may  not  have  been 
kings  at  all,  but  prophets — which  Gesenius  seems  to  prefer.  Bleek's 
argument  from  this  passage  in  favour  of  the  composition  of  chapters 
ix-xi  in  the  time  of  King  Menahem  1  is  utterly  groundless. 

Respecting  chapters  xii-xiv,  it  is  conceded  by  Bleek  and  Schrader 
that  they  were  composed  after  the  death  of  king  Josiah  (B.  C.  610), 
to  whose  death  there  is  a  clear  reference  in  chap,  xii,  n  :  "In  that 
day  shall  there  be  a  great  mourning  in  Jerusalem,  as  the  mourning 
of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddon."  In  illustration  of  this 
see  2  Kings  xxxiii,  29,  30;  2  Chron.  xxxv,  24. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  we  cannot  place  the  last  three  chapters  of 
the  book  earlier  than  about  B.  C.  600,  or  near  the  beginning  of  the 
Babylonian  captivity.  But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  these  chap 
ters  were  written  then,  for  there  is  no  mention  made  of  the  Chal 
deans,  who  were  on  the  point  of  destroying  Jerusalem.  The  Book 
of  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  is  full  of  predictions  belonging  to  that  time 
respecting  the  destruction  of  the  city  by  the  Chaldeans.  It  is  next 
to  impossible  to  believe  that  these  chapters  synchronize  with  any  of 
those  belonging  to  Jeremiah.  Nor  can  we  suppose  that  they  were 
written  during  the  Babylonian  exile,  or  that  they  could  have  been 
written  long  posterior  to  the  captivity.  Consequently,  the  age  of 
Zechariah,  or  that  immediately  succeeding,  is  the  only  one  to  which 
the  chapters  in  question  belong. 

It  is  true  that  we  find  in  the  last  division  certain  predictions  re 
specting  the  captivity  of  Jerusalem.  But  the  entire  description  is 
totally  unsuitable  to  the  destruction  and  captivity  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Chaldeans;  for  it  refers  to  times  long  subsequent  to  that  event, 
and  is  closely  connected  with  the  advent  of  the  Messiah. 

If  this  last  section  belongs  to  Zechariah,  it  will  be  difficult  to  be 
lieve  that  chapters  ix-xi  belong  to  an  earlier  author,  and  have  been 
interpolated  into  the  book  of  Zechariah 's  prophecies.  In  the  dis 
puted  sections  of  these  prophecies  there  is  no  mention  of  a  king  as 
ruling  over  Judah;  on  the  contrary,  the  reference  is  either  tc  a 
piince  of  Judah  (chap,  ix,  7),  or  to  governors  of  Judah  (chap. 
***»  5>  6);  from  which  the  probable  inference  is,  that  when  the 
prophecies  were  composed  there  was  no  king  in  Judah. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  style  of  the  second  part  (chaps, 
rx-xiv)  is  different  from  that  of  the  first  (chaps,  i-viii).  Symbols,  it  is 
1  Einleitung,  p.  550. 


444  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

true,  are  used  in  chaps,  i-v,  but  not  in  chaps,  vi,  vii — which  shows 
there  is  not  uniformity  in  the  first  part.  But  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  we  are  not  to  expect  the  same  kind  of  style  in  the  first  part, 
Difference  in  *n  wnicn  tne  people  are  personally  addressed,  and  in 
style  easily  ac-  the  second,  which  is  for  the  most  part  prophetic.  The 
prophet  was  a  young  man  when  he  wrote  the  first  part 
(chap,  ii,  4),  but  the  latter  portion  may  have  been  written  at  a  late 
period  in  life,  when  his  style  had  greatly  changed. 

There  are,  indeed,  certain  peculiarities  common  to  both  the  ac 
knowledged  and  the  disputed  parts  of  the  book.  The  phrase 
3B?3i  "W3,  from  passing  over  and  returning,  is  found  both  in  chaps 
vii,  14  and  ix,  8.  It  occurs  nowhere  else,  except  in  Ezek.  xxxv,  7, 
where  it  wants  the  mem  (^),from.  The  eye,  as  the  symbol  of  divine 
providence,  is  used  in  chap,  iv,  10  and  chap,  ix,  i,  "Jehovah's  eye  is 
upon  men,  and  upon  all  the  tribes  of  Israel"  (Gesenius).  Not  very 
different  is,  "  I  have  seen  with  my  eyes  "  (chap,  ix,  8),  with  reference 
to  Jehovah.  In  chap,  ii,  10,  "Sing  and  rejoice,  O  daughter  of  Zion," 
occurs,  and  in  chap,  ix,  9  the  very  similar  language,  "  Rejoice  great 
ly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  !  shout,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem  !  "  is  found. 

The  external  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the  whole  book  is 
exceedingly  strong.  It  is  attributed  to  Zechariah  in  the  Septuagint 
and  in  the  Peshito-Syriac,  as  well  as  in  the  Hebrew  Bible ;  and  it  is 
strong  external  very  difficult  to  see  how  these  chapters  (ix-xiv)  could 
gSminwi^of  have  been  attributed  to  Zechariah — as  the  canon  was 
Zechariah.  formed  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah — if  they  had 
not  been  written  by  him  ;  for  it  is  probable  that  not  more  than 
eighty  years  intervened  between  the  time  of  the  composition  of 
chapters  i-ix  and  the  formation  of  the  canon ;  and  as  Zechariah 
was  a  young  man  when  he  wrote  these  chapters  (see  chap,  ii,  4),  it 
is  likely  that  he  lived  until  within  forty  or  fifty  years  of  the  time 
when  the  collection  was  made.  How,  under  such  circumstances, 
could  prophecies  written  from  one  to  three  centuries  earlier  than  the 
time  of  Zechariah  have  been  attributed  to  him?  It  would  be  the 
patching  of  a  piece  of  old  cloth  on  a  new  garment. 

Nor  does  the  ancient  tradition  of  the  Jews  give  us  the  slightest 
hint  that  a  doubt  had  been  raised  respecting  the  genuineness  of  the 
chapters  now  disputed.  Respecting  them  Fiirst  remarks  :  "  The  Tal- 
mudic  period  did  not  recognise  these  six  chapters  as  different  from 
the  first,  although  the  peculiarity  in  language  and  turns  of  expres 
sion,  and  the  absence  of  visions  and  symbols,  clearly  enough  pointed 
to  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  peculiarity  of  this  part  was  described 
as  a  prophecy  delivered  after  the  exile,  referring  to  Messianic  times. 
Holding  fast  the  conviction  that  also  this  part,  in  form  a.nd  contents 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  445 

so  different,  had  proceeded  from  our  Zechariah,  they  referred  its 
contents  partly  to  the  affairs  of  the  Jews  during  the  first  rulers  after 
Alexander,  and  partly  to  a  still  later  Messianic  time,  as  the  prophetic 
foresight  was  never  doubted.  This  Talmudic  method  of  exposition 
the  better  national  expositors  at  that  time  followed."1 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROPHECY. 

This  prophet,  although  charged  by  Schrader3  with  "a  want  of 
originality  of  thought  and  freshness  and  power  of  diction,"  has,  in 
fact,  a  great  deal  of  originality,  both  in  his  conceptions  and  manner 
of  representation.  The  last  six  chapters  contain  many  Messianic 
passages.  The  ancient  rabbies  complained  of  the  obscurities  of  his 
visions ; '  and  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  complaint  is  not 
without  ground.  "  The  language,"  however,  "  is  formed  upon  good 
classical  models,  and  is  almost  free  of  Chaldaisms." 

THE    PROPHET    MALACHI. 

This  is  the  last  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  Nothing 
is  known  of  him  apart  from  his  book  of  prophacies.  The  name 
"D^S?,  Malachi)  according  to  Gesenius,  is  apocopated  from  rfONSrD, 
"  Messenger  of  Jehovah."  In  the  LXX  the  book  bears  the  title, 
"MaAo^mc; "  but  in  the  text,  instead  of  "  by  the  hand  of  Malachi," 
it  is  "by  the  hand  of  his  angel"  (or  messenger).  In  the  Peshito- 
Syriac  the  inscription  is,  "The  prophecy  of  Malachi  the  prophet," 
and  the  name  is  retained  in  the  first  verse.  In  the  Vulgate  it  stands, 
"  The  prophecy  of  Malachi,"  and  in  the  text  the  proper  name  is  re 
tained,  "  by  the  hand  of  Malachi."  In  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben- 
Uzziel  it  is  said,  "  by  the  hand  of  Malachi,  by  which  name  Ezra 
the  scribe  is  called."  Accordingly,  Jerome  4  remarks :  "The  He 
brews  think  that  Malachi  is  Ezra  the  priest."  On  this  prophet  Furst  * 
remarks:  "Tradition  had  related  so  little  of  his  personality  that  at 
one  time  he  was  identified  with  Mordecai,  at  another  with  Ezra; 
nevertheless,  the  general  judgment  was  that  Malachi  was  not  to  be 
taken  as  an  appellation  (or  title),  but  as  a  proper  name,  .  .  .  and 
that  he  prophesied  at  the  same  time  with  Haggai  and  Zechariah  in 
the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius,  B.  C.  464-" 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Malachi  was  the  real  name  of 
the  prophet ;  and  this  is  the  view,  as  Bleek  observes,  of  by  far  the 
greater  number  of  expositors.  It  is  true  the  book  gives  nothing 

1  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  45.  'De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  476. 

8  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  p.  43. 
*  Prologue  to  Malachi.  •  Ueber  <?an  Kanon,  p.   [7. 


446  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

but  his  bare  name.  But  the  same  is  also  true  of  the  prophecies  of 
Obadiah  and  Habakkuk,  whose  books  give  us  their  names  simply. 
But  this  is  no  ground  for  doubting  that  they  are  real  names. 

The  book  may  be  divided  into  six  1  sections.  The  first  (chapter 
i,  2-5)  declares  God's  love  of  Jacob  and  hatred  of  Esau.  The  second 
(chaps,  i,  6-ii,  9)  censures  the  priests  for  their  bad  conduct.  The 
third  (chap,  ii,  10-16)  rebukes  those  who  separated  themselves  from 
their  Israelitish  wives,  and  formed  matrimonial  alliances  with  heathen 
women.  The  fourth  (chaps,  ii,  ly-iii,  6)  declares  that  God  will  send 
the  Messenger  of  the  Covenant  to  purify  the  sons  of  Levi,  and  that 
he  himself  will  judge  the  wicked.  The  fifth  (chap,  iii,  7-12)  rebukes 
the  people  for  not  bringing  the  tithes  appointed  by  the  law,  and 
promises  them  a  blessing  if  they  bring  them.  The  sixth  (chaps, 
iii,  i.3-iv,  6)  rebukes  the  people  for  asserting  that  it  is  useless  to 
serve  God,  and  declares  that  God  will  certainly  reward  the  righteous 
and  punish  the  wicked,  and  exhorts  the  people  to  obey  the  law  of 
Moses.  God  promises  to  send  Elijah  the  prophet  to  restore  affec 
tion  between  parents  and  children,  that  the  earth  may  not  be  cursed. 

DATE   OF    COMPOSITION. 

It  is  evident  from  various  passages  (chaps,  i,  7,  10;  ii,  13;  iii, 
i,  10)  that  the  temple  was  already  rebuilt  and  divine  worship  estab 
lished  when  the  book  was  written.  It  is  assigned  by  Schrader  to 
the  interval  between  the  first  and  second  visit  of  Nehemiah  to  Jeru 
salem,  between  B.  C.  433  and  424.  It  is  placed  in  the  time  of  Ne 
hemiah 's  second  visit  by  Vitringa,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Rosenmuller, 
Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  and  Keil.  By  Davidson  it  is  referred 
to  the  interval  between  B.  C.  460  and  B.  C.  450.  Ewald  places  it 
shortly  after  the  labours  of  Ezra. 

The  ancient  common  tradition  of  the  Jews  related  that  Malachi 
was  a  contemporary  of  Zechariah  and  Haggai ;  but  there  was  also 
an  old  tradition  that  he  was  the  latest  of  the  prophets,  and  that 
when  he  prophesied  the  temple  had  been  already  for  a  long  time  re 
stored.  With  Malachi,  Zechariah,  and  Haggai,  it  was  held  that  the 
prophetic  spirit  departed  from  Israel.2 

Bleek  remarks :  "  It  is  probable  that  the  book  was  written  dur 
ing  the  governorship  of  a  predecessor  of  Nehemiah.  As,  in  all 
probability,  Nehemiah  made  the  collection  of  the  prophets,  our  book 
can  in  no  event  fall  in  a  later  period ;  on  the  contrary,  on  account 

1  De  Wette  and  Hengstenbeig  divide  it  into  six  sections  ;  Bleek  into  five  ;  Ewald, 
Havernick,  and  Keil  into  three. 
*  Furst,  Ueber  den  Kanon,  pp.  47,  48. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 


447 


of  its  reception  into  the  collection  it  is  probable  that  it  was  com 
posed  somewhat  earlier."1 

The  principal  reasons  for  referring  the  book  to  the  age  of  Nehe- 
miah  are  the  following :  Malachi  censures  the  same  abuses  that  Ne- 
hemiah  does  in  his  thirteenth  chapter,  in  which  he  relates  his  admin 
istration  of  affairs  on  his  second  visit  to  Jerusalem  (about  B.  C.  434). 
The  abuses  consisted  of  neglect  of  payment  of  tithes  for  the  support 
of  the  priests  and  Levites  (Mai.  iii,  8-10;  Neh.  xiii,  10-12);  matri 
monial  alliances  of  the  Jews,  especially  of  the  priests,  with  foreign 
women  (Mai.  ii,  10,  n;  Neh.  xiii,  23-30),  etc.  As  these  abuses 
were  corrected  by  Nehemiah,  B.  C.  434,  it  seems  best,  upon  the  whole 
to  refer  the  composition  of  the  book  to  about  B.  C.  440. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  PROPHECY. 

Malachi  is  distinguished  by  a  practical  spirit,  that  strives  to  meet 
the  wants  of  the  times  and  to  correct  abuses  rather  than  to  soar  aloft 
in  magnificent  descriptions  of  the  Divine  Majesty  and  in  glowing 
pictures  of  the  future.  He  abounds  in  dialogue,  and  is  by  no  means 
devoid  of  force.  De  Wette,  notwithstanding  his  unfavourable  re 
marks,  acknowledges  that  "  in  delivery,  rhythm,  and  images,  Malachi 
does  not  quite  unsuccessfully  emulate  the  old  prophets."  a 

Einlcitung,  p.  567.  f  De  Wette — Schrader,  p.  485. 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  I 

PRELIMINARY    CONSIDERATIONS. 

n^HE  Old  Testament,  with  its  sublime  Monotheism,  was  the  posses 
sion  of  the  Jewish  people  alone,  whose  mission  it  was  to  preserve 
the  knowledge  of  the  true  God  in  the  midst  of  pagan  darkness,  to 
announce  through  their  prophets  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  to 
prepare  the  way  before  him.  The  fundamental  truths  of  Judaism  are 
eternal,  and  suited  to  man  in  all  conditions,  in  all  stages  of  devel 
opment,  and  in  every  part  of  the  earth,  while  its  civil  and  ceremonial 
laws,  being,  to  a  large  extent,  of  a  local '  character,  cannot  be  ob- 
Judaismneces-  served  among  all  nations ;  and  on  this  ground  alone 
Bariiy  local.  Judaism  can  never  become  a  universal  religion.9  Foi 
this  reason  it  was  necessary  that  the  system  of  Judaism  should  be 
modified,  enlarged,  and  adapted  to  the  wants  of  all  men.  This  was 
done  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  promised  Messiah,  who  appeared 
among  the  Jewish  people  in  the  fullness  of  time,  and  became  the 
author  of  a  New  Covenant,  in  the  provisions  of  which  all  nations 
are  embraced.  If  our  Saviour  had  been  a  legislator,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  it  would  have  been  proper,  and  even  necessary, 
that  he,  like  Moses,  should  have  himself  given  to  men  a  written  sys 
tem.  But  our  Lord's  mission  was  to  redeem  men  rather  than  to  legis 
late  for  them ;  in  short,  he  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  moral  crea 
tion — the  spiritual  life  of  the  world. 

But,  further,  the  system  of  Christianity  was  not  completed  until 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead  and  ascended  to  heaven ;  and  before  those 
events  the  history  could  not  be  fully  written.  Our  Saviour,  for  the 
establishing  of  his  divine  mission  and  unfolding  his  system,  selected 
the  apostles  as  the  witnesses  of  his  wondrous  life,  his  death,  resur- 

*The  precept  in  Exodus  xxiii,  17,  and  especially  in  Deut.  xvi,  16,  "Three  times 
in  a  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  the  place  which  he 
shall  choose,"  cannot  be  observed  by  all  men  everywhere. 

"Jews  are  found  in  almost  every  part  of  the  world,  but  it  is  a  well-known  fact 
tnat  there  are  parts  of  the  Mosaic  system  which  they  do  not  and  cannot  keep. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  44!) 

rection,  and  ascension  to  heaven.  He  trained  them  for  their  special 
work ;  filled  them  with  the  divine  Spirit,  which  was  to  bring  to  their 
remembrance  all  things  which  he  had  said;  and  endowed  them  with 
miraculous  powers  to  establish  the  truth  of  their  teaching. 

From  the  very  nature  of  the  revelation  and  history  it  was  not 
proper,  or,  humanly  speaking,  possible,  for  Christ  himself  to  write  the 
system  of  his  religion.  Had  all  his  moral  precepts  been  written  by 
himself  we  would  have  a  rigid  form — one  possibly  more  complete  in 
some  respects,  but  one  which  would  impart  no  more  life.  In  the  his 
tory  and  teachings  of  Christ,  as  we  possess  them  in  the  four  Gos 
pels,  moral  precepts  are  often  delivered  in  connexion  with  histor 
ical  incidents,  and  are  thus  made  clearer  and  more  lifelike. 

It  is  very  evident  that  the  account  of  the  teaching  and  acts  of 
Christ,  though  at  first  delivered  orally,  could  not  be  written  records 
transmitted  to  posterity  in  its  integrity  without  being:  necessary    for 
,     -,   •       ,  v  /  1,7  •        the    Perpetua^ 

recorded  in  the  apostolic  age  or  soon  afterward.  Writ-  tion  of  chris 
ten  documents  were  necessary  to  the  continued  exist-  *ianity- 
ence  of  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation,  and  if  we  have  sufficient 
proof  that  the  mission  of  Christ  in  the  world  was  of  divine  appoint 
ment  there  is  the  highest  probability,  a  priori^  that  God  in  his  provi 
dence  would  provide  for  the  transmission  of  the  revelation  to  future 
generations. 

But,  independently  of  these  considerations,  it  is  in  the  highest  de 
gree  probable  that  the  appearance  of  such  an  extraordinary  char 
acter  as  Christ,  and  the  wide  diffusion  of  his  religion,  would  call 
forth  writers  of  his  history  at  a  very  early  period,  especially  in  an 
age  of  so  much  intellectual  culture  and  literary  activity. 

We  would  also  expect  that  there  would  be  a  history  written  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  after  Christ  left  the  world,  and  that  the  apostles 
would  write  important  letters  upon  various  occasions.  Accordingly 
we  are  not  surprised  that  we  have  so  much  history  belonging  to  the 
apostolic  age,  of  the  founding  of  Christianity  by  Christ  and  his  apos 
tles,  and  so  many  apostolic  epistles ;  but  we  rather  wonder  that  we 
have  not  mom. 

VOL.  I.— 29 


450  INTRODUCTION   TO   THL    b'i  UDY 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE  RAPID  DIFFUSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  AND  THte  NUM 
BER  AND  LITERARY  CHARACTER  OF  THE  EARLY  CHRIS 
TIANS,  AS  BEARING  UPON  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS. 

fT  is  very  evident  that  the  wider  the  diffusion  of  Christianity  in  the 
A  apostolic  age,  and  in  the  ages  immediately  succeeding— the  greater 
the  number  of  Christians,  and  the  higher  the  culture  of  many  of 
them — the  stronger  does  their  testimony  become  in  favour  of  writings 
universally  admitted  by  them  to  be  genuine. 

The  Roman  historian  Tacitus  (born  about  A.  D.  61)  bears  wit- 
Testimony  of  ness  to  the  fact  that  Christianity  originated  with  Christ, 
prevalence  "of  was  w^ely  diffused,  and  had  many  converts.  In  de- 
Christianity.  scribing  the  burning  of  Rome — which  was  attributed 
to  Nero — in  A.  D.  64,  he  remarks  that  Nero,  in  order  to  put  an 
end  to  the  rumour  that  he  had  himself  set  the  city  on  fire,  "ac 
cused  and  inflicted  the  severest  punishments  upon  men  whom,  hated 
on  account  of  their  crimes,  the  populace  called  Christians.  The 
author  of  this  name  was  Christ,  who  in  the  reign  of  Tiberias  was 
put  to  death  by  Pontius  Pilate,  the  procurator.  The  deadly  super- 
stition,  checked  for  awhile,  again  broke  forth  not  only  through  J-udea, 
the  source  of  this  evil,  but  through  the  city  (Rome)  also,  where  all 
things  wicked  or  shameful  from  every  quarter  meet  and  are  prac 
tised.  At  first,  therefore,  those  were  arrested  who  acknowledged 
(that  they  were  of  that  sect) ;  then,  through  their  information,  a  vast 
multitude  were  convicted,  not  so  much  on  the  charge  of  burning 
(Rome),  as  of  hatred  of  the  human  race."1 

The   younger  Pliny,  who   governed   Bithynia,  A.  D.   111-113,  a 

Testimony    of   ^oman  province  near  the  Black  Sea,  not  much  less  than 

puny  in  his  iet-  a  thousand  miles  from  Jerusalem,  found  the  Christians 

Trajan.     -^  great  mimbers  in  his  province,  concerning  whom  he 

gives  an  account  in  his  ninety-seventh  Epistle,  addressed  to  the 

1  Auctor  nominis  ejus  Christus,  Tiberio  imperitante  per  procuratorem  Pentium  Pi- 
latum  supplicio  affectus  erat :  repressaque  in  praesens  exitiabilis  superstitio  rursvw 
•rumpebat,  non  modo  per  Judseam  originem  ejus  mali,  sed  per  urbem  etiam,  quo  cuncta 
undique  atrocia  aut  pudenda  confluunt,  celebranturque.  Igitur  primo  correpti,  qui 
fatebantur,  deinde,  indicio  eorum,  multitude  ingens,  baud  perinde  in  crimine  incen- 
dii,  quam  odio  humani  generis,  convicti  sunt. — Annalium,  lib.  xv,  cap.  xliv. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  451 

Emperor  Trajan.  The  number  of  Christians  in  his  province  can  be 
inferred  from  the  following  language  :  "  Many  of  every  age,  of  every 
rank,  of  both  sexes  also,  are  summoned,  and  will  be  summoned,  to 
trial.  For  not  only  through  the  cities,  but  also  through  the  villages 
and  the  fields,  has  the  contagion  of  this  superstition  spread,  which, 
it  seems,  can  be  checked  and  corrected.  It  is,  indeed,  very  evident 
that  the  temples,  which  were  almost  entirely  forsaken,  begin  to  be 
frequented,  and  the  appointed  rites,  that  had  for  a  long  time  been 
neglected,  to  be  resumed,  and  victims  everywhere  are  sold,  of 
which  hitherto  purchasers  were  rarely  found."1  The  testimony  of 
these  two  heathen  writers  certainly  shows  that  even  in  the  apostolic 
age,  and  in  the  time  immediately  subsequent,  Christianity  was  pro 
fessed  by  multitudes  in  various  parts  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

From  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  their  epistles  it  is  evident  that 
in  their  age  Christianity  was  very  widely  diffused  and 


had  many  converts.  In  Acts  iv,  4,  not  long  after  the  Christianity  as 
crucifixion  of  Christ,  the  number  of  his  followers  in  Je-  Acts  of  the 
rusalem  is  stated  to  be  about  five  thousand.  In  Acts  vi,  7  AP°stles- 
it  is  said  that  "  the  number  of  the  disciples  multiplied  in  Jerusalem 
greatly  ;  and  a  great  company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the 
faith."  In  Acts  xxi,  20  James  says  to  Paul,  "  Thou  seest,  brother, 
how  many  myriads  of  the  Jews  there  are  who  believe."  In  the 
apostolic  age  Churches  were  established  "  throughout  all  Judea,  and 
Galilee,  and  Samaria  "  (Acts  ix,  31).  Christians  were  also  found  in 
Damascus,  Antioch,  the  principal  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  various  cities 
in  Macedonia,  at  Corinth,  and  in  Rome.  The  history  of  the  planting 
of  the  early  Church  is  only  partially  recorded  in  the  Acts. 

Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  declares  : 
"  There  is  not,  indeed,  a  single  race  of  men,  either  of  Testimony  of 
Barbarians  or  of  Greeks,  by  whatever  name  they  may  be  ^"otheTfal 
called,  whether  dwellers  in  wagons,  or  who  have  no  there. 
houses,  or  who  as  nomads  dwell  in  tents,  among  whom  prayers  and 
thanksgivings  are  not  offered  to  the  Father  and  Creator  of  the  uni 
verse  in  the  name  of  the  crucified  Jesus."1  Irenaeus,  bishop  of 

1  Multi  cnim  omnis  aetatis,  omnis  ordinis,  utriusque  sexus  etiam,  vocantur  in  per- 
tculum,  et  vocabuntur.  Neque  enim  civitates  tantum,  sed  vicos  etiam  atque  agros 
wperstitionis  istius  contagio  pervagata  est  :  quse  videtur  sisti  et  corrigi  posse.  Certe 
satis  constat,  prope  jam  desolata  templa  ccepisse  celebrari,  et  sacra  solennia  diu  in- 
termissa  repeti,  passimque  venire  victimas,  quarum  adhuc  rarissimus  emptor  invenie- 
batur.—  Lib.  x,  Epistola  xcvii. 
1  Otxte  ev  yap  o?,w?  earl  TO  y£  vo$  av&puTruv,  tire  j3ap(3dpuv,  sire  'EAAj/vw 

bvupan  irpooayopevo/j.ivuv,  77  a/za£o/?/«Jv  f/  uotKui?   Kakovjievuv,  fy  kv 

,  OIKOVVTOV,  iv  oic  pj  6ia  TOV  bvofiarof  TOV  aTavpudivTos'lTjaov  iv^al  fcnl  h* 
Tlorpt  Kal  Unirjry  TUV  6Awv  yiiovrai.  —  Dialogus  cum  Trypho.,  cap.  117. 


452  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202),  speaks  of  Churches  founded  in  Germany,  in 
Spain,  among  the  Celts,  in  the  East,  in  Egypt,  in  Libya,  and  in  the 
middle  of  the  world  '  (Judea). 

,  Tertullian,  presbyter  of  Carthage,  about  A.  D.  200,  asks :  "  In 
whom  else  have  all  nations  believed  but  in  Christ,  who  has  already 
come  ?  "  He  enumerates  Parthians,  Medes,  Elamites,  inhabitants 
of  Mesopotamia,  Armenia,  Phrygia,  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Asia,  Pam- 
phylia,  Egypt,  of  Africa  beyond  Cyrene,  and  Rome.  Also  various 
nations  of  the  Getuli,  many  in  the  confines  of  the  Moors  and  the 
borders  of  Spain,  various  tribes  of  the  Gauls,  parts  of  the  Britains 
inaccessible  to  the  Romans,  portions  of  the  Sarmatians,  Dacians, 
Germans,  Scythians,  and  of  many  hostile  races,  and  of  many  prov 
inces  and  islands  unknown  to  the  Romans,  which  could  not  be  enu 
merated.3  "  If,"  says  he,  "  we  wished  to  act  the  part  of  open  ene 
mies,  not  that  of  concealed  avengers  only,  would  we  lack  numbers 
and  forces?  "  Again  he  says  :  *'  We  are  of  yesterday,  and  we  have 
filled  everything  you  have,  your  cities,  your  islands,  citadels,  free 
towns,  your  courts  of  justice,  your  very  camps,  tribes,  decades,  the 
palace,  the  senate,  the  forum ;  we  have  left  you  your  temples  only. 
We  can  count  your  armies ;  in  one  province  the  Christians  will  out 
number  them."4 

In  his  book  to  Scapula,  in  speaking  of  the  Christians,  he  asks : 
"  What  will  you  do  with  so  many  thousands  of  human  beings,  so 
many  men  and  women,  of  every  age,  of  every  dignity,  who  present 
themselves  to  you?  How  many  fires,  how  many  swords,  will  you  . 
need?  What  will  Carthage  herself  suffer,  decimated  by  you,  when 
each  one  will  then  recognise  his  own  relations  and  his  own  com 
panions  ?  "  6  etc.  In  this  same  book  he  also  says  •  "  Although  we 
compose  so  great  a  multitude  of  men,  being  almost  the  greater  part 
of  each  State,  we  pass  our  time  in  quietness  and  sobriety."  (  That 
the  Christians  were  numerous  in  Northern  Africa  about  A.  D.  200 
appears  from  the  fact  that  at  the  synod  held  at  that  time  by  Agrip- 
pinus,  bishop  of  Carthage,  seventy  bishops  were  present  from  Africa 
and  Numidia.7 

Bardesanes,  a  distinguished  Christian  scholar  of  Edessa,  about 
A.  D.  160-170,  exclaims,  "What,  then,  shall  we  say  respecting  the 
new  race;  of  ourselves  who  are  Christians,  whom  in  every  country 

'Contra  Hsereses,  lib.  i,  cap.  x,  sec.  2.  "Adversus  Judaeos,  cap.  vit 

*  Apologeticus,  cap.  xxxvii.  *  Ibid. 

*Lib.  Ad  Scapulam,  cap.  v.  "Ibid.,  cap.  ii. 

'  Cyprian  speaks  of  this  council  in  Epist.  Ixxi,  and  in  others.  The  number  of  the 
bishops  is  given  by  Augustine,  De  Unico  Baptismo  contra  Petilianum,  lib.  unus, 
cap.  13.  The  reference  in  Gieseler's  History  of  the  Church  is  wrong. 


OF  THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  453 

and  in  every  region  the  Messiah  established  at  his  coming  ?  "  He 
speaks  of  Christians  in  Judea,  Gallia,  Parthia,  Media,  Persia,  and 
among  the  Geli  and  Cashani.1  Christianity  was  "  established  a* 
Edessa  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century."5  Christians 
were  quite  numerous  in  Northern  Arabia  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  and  Churches  were,  doubtless,  there  established  as  early  as 
the  second  century." 

In  the  middle  of  the  third  century  there  were  in  the  city  of  Rome 
*'  forty-six  presbyters,  seven  deacons,  seven  sub-deacons,  forty-two 
acolytes;  exorcists,  readers,  with  the  janitors,  fifty-two;  widows, 
with  those  in  straitened  circumstances,  more  than  fifteen  hundred, 
all  of  whom  the  grace  and  goodness  of  God  supports."  4  The  mem 
bers  are  represented  as  "  innumerable,"  and  as  having  wealthy  per* 
sons  among  them.6  The  number  of  the  Churches  was  probably 
forty-six,  which  was  the  number  of  the  presbyters,  as  each  presbyter, 
it  seems,  had  charge  of  one  single  Church. 

Origen,  in  his  work  against  Celsus,  written  about  A.  D.  245,  speaks 
in  various  places  of  the  great  number  of  Christians  in  Testimony  of 
his  time.  He  represents  the  gospel  as  "  having  con-  Ori«en- 
quered  all  Greece,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  Barbarians,  and  as 
having  brought  over  many  myriads  of  souls  to  the  worship  of  God 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  it."  ' 

The  number  of  the  Christians  in  the  Roman  empire  in  the  begin 
ning  of  the  fourth  century  may  be  inferred  from  the  let-  other  testi- 


ter  of  Jovius  Maximinus  Agustus  to   Sabinus,  in  which   ™e 


he  states  :  "  Our  emperors  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  Christianity. 
our  fathers,  when  they  saw  that  almost  all  men,  having  abandoned  the. 
worship  of  the  gods,  had  united  themselves  to  the  nation  of  the  Christians, 
rightly  ordained  that  all  men  who  had  departed  from  the  worship  of 
the  same  immortal  gods  should  be  recalled  to  the  worship  of  the  gods 
by  manifest  chastisement  and  punishment."1  Arnobius,  who  wrote 
about  A.  D.  300,  represents  the  whole  world  as  filled  with  the  religion 
of  Christ? 

About  A.  D.  324  Christianity  became  the  State  religion  under 
Constantine,  and  paganism  gradually  declined,  and  a  hundred  years 

JCureton's  Spicilegium  Syriacum,  Bardesan,  p.  32. 

Gieseler's  Church  History,  vol.  i,  p.  118,  Eng.  Trans. 
'Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  33.  37. 

'  In  the  letter  of  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  in  En- 
tebius*  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  43.  •  Ibid. 

*  n<i(777f  ficv  'EAArifof  lirl  irfatov  de  rjfr  ftap/3dpov  iupdrijae,  KCU  pereirolTiae  [ivpiat 
forac  V»u^ac,  K.  T.  A.  —  Lib.  i,  27.  *  In  Eusebius,  Hist  Eccles.,  lib.  ix,  9. 

*  Unde  tarn  brevi  tempore  totus  mundus  ista  religione  completus  est.  .  .  .  ?  —  Ad- 
?ersus  Gentes,  lib.  i,  cap.  55. 


454  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

later  had  almost  disappeared.  Gibbon  estimates  the  population  of 
the  Roman  empire  to  have  been  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  in 
the  age  of  Claudius  Caesar.1  Merivale  computes  it  to  have  been 
eighty-five  millions  in  the  reign  of  Augustus.8  The  fact  that  pagan 
ism  was  extirpated  without  any  great  difficulty  after  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine  is  a  strong  proof  that  great  multitudes  of  Christians  must 
have  been  found  in  most  parts  of  the  empire ;  and  it  is  not  improb 
able  that  the  Christian  population  was  nearly  one  half  that  of  the 
whole  empire  just  before  Christianity  was  made  the  religion  of  the 
State  by  Constantine. 

In  respect  to  the  literary  character  of  the  Christians  of  \hzfirst 
Literary  profl-  three  centuries,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  no  age,  how- 
early7  °chri3^  ever  cultivated,  are  the  masses  of  the  people  highly  edu- 
Uans-  cated.  But  the  very  fact  that  very  many  of  the  early 

Christians  had  been  brought  up  in  heathenism,  and  abandoned  it  for 
the  new  faith  in  opposition  to  all  their  former  prejudices  and  in  the 
very  face  of  so  many  temporal  disadvantages,  is  a  strong  proof  of 
their  intelligence  and  strength  of  mind,  as  well  as  of  their  piety. 

Merivale  well  observes  that  Paul's  "converts  were  among  the 
wise  and  prudent,  as  well  as  among  the  impulsive  and  devout.  I 
reject,  then,  the  notion,  too  hastily  assumed,  too  readily  accepted 
from  a  mistaken  apprehension  of  the  real  dignity  of  the  gospel,  that 
the  first  preaching  of  the  faith  was  addressed  to  the  lowest,  mean 
est,  and  least  intelligent — the  outcasts  and  proletaries  of  society. 
Many  reasons,  I  am  convinced,  might  be  alleged  for  concluding  that 
it  was  much  the  reverse.  As  regards  the  Christian  Church  at  Rome — 
at  least  the  direct  statements  of  the  apostle  himself,  the  evidence  of 
existing  monuments  of  antiquity,  inferences  of  no  little  strength 
from  the  records  of  secular  history,  and  inferences  not  lightly  to  be 
rejected  from  the  language  and  sentiments  of  contemporary  heathen, 
all  tend  to  assure  us  that  it  embraced  some  devoted  members,  and 
attracted  many  anxious  inquirers,  amidst  the  palaces  of  the  nobles,, 
and  even  in  Caesar's  household.'" 

From  the  very  beginning  Christianity  made  a  conquest  of  a  con 
siderable  number  of  learned  men  and  philosophers,  who  adorned 
the  annals  of  the  early  Church  by  their  talents  and  learning.  Quad- 
Literary  com-  ratus  and  Aristides,  learned  Christians  of  Athens,  pre-- 
£POH£  sented  apologies  of  their  faith  to  the  Emperor  Hadri- 
an,  A.  D.  126.  Agrippa  Castor,  a  very  learned  man, 
wrote  an  able  refutation  of  Basilides  about  A.  D.  135.  In  the 

1  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  i,  p.  53. 

'  History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire,  vol.  iv,  p.  343. 

8  Conversion  of  the  Roman  Empire,  Lecture  iv,  pp.  100,  101. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  455 

first  part  of  this  century  must  be  placed  the  remarkable  Epistle  to 
Di  >gnetus,  one  of  the  finest  productions  of  early  Christianity.  To 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century  belong  the  Expositions  of  the 
Oracles  of  the  Lord,  by  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis.  Here  be 
longs  Justin  Martyr,  a  distinguished  writer,  who  had  been  a  heathen 
philosopher.  He  wrote  his  first  Defence  of  Christianity  about  A.  D. 
139;  the  Second  Apology,  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  and 
other  works,  at  a  later  period.  Hegesippus,  about  A.  D.  170,  wrote 
five  books  of  Ecclesiastical  Events.  Athenagoras,  a  Greek  philos 
opher,  about  A.  D.  170,  wrote  a  Defence  of  the  Christians  (npeafieia 
trept  T&V  Xp«mai>wv),  and  a  work  on  the  Resurrection  of  the  Dead. 
About  the  same  time  Tatian,  the  Assyrian,  a  disciple  of  Justin  Mar 
tyr,  wrote  an  Oration  against  the  Greeks  and  a  Harmony  of  the 
Four  Gospels.  About  160-170  Bardesanes,  a  very  learned  Christian 
of  Edessa,  wrote  voluminous  works. 

Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  and  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
about  A.  D.  170,  were  the  authors  of  many  works  in  vindi-  other  eafl 
cation  or  explanation  of  Christianity.  Theophilus,  bishop  Christian  writ- 
of  Antioch  (A.  D.  169-181  or  183),  was  the  author  of  a  ers* 
work  in  three  books  addressed  to  Autolycus,  a  heathen,  in  defence  of 
Christianity,  "in  which,"  to  use  the  language  of  Neander,  "he  dis 
plays  great  erudition  and  power  of  thought."  He  also  wrote  other 
works.  Philip,  bishop  of  Gortyna,  in  Crete,  and  Modestus  (161-192) 
wrote  against  Marcion.  Apollonius,  a  senator  of  Rome  in  the  reign 
of  Commodus  (A.  D.  180-192),  gave  the  senate  an  account  of  his  faith 
in  a  remarkable  volume.  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202), 
was  a  man  of  learning  and  ability.  He  wrote  five  books  against 
Haereses,  besides  other  works. 

.  In  the  last  half  of  the  second  century  we  find  at  Alexandria,  in 
Egypt,  Panraenus,  a  Stoic  philosopher,  the  first  eminent  teacher  of 
the  catechetic  school  of  that  city,  and  the  author  of  many  commen 
taries  on  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  Titus  Flavius  Clemens,  president 
of  the  catechetic  school  (about  A.  D.  191-202),  the  author  of  several 
important  works  on  Christianity.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  second, 
and  in  the  first  part  of  the  third,  century,  there  flourished  at  Carthage 
Tertullian,  a  voluminous  Christian  writer,  a  man  of  great  learning, 
eloquence,  and  profundity.  In  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
there  lived  in  the  same  city  the  distinguished  Christian,  Cyprian, 
who  wrote  many  small  works. 

Ir  Palestine  (about  A.  D.  230),  we  find  Julius  Africanus,  the  first 
Christian  chronographer.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  second,  or  begin 
ning  of  the  third,  century,  Minucius  Felix,  a  distinguished  Roman 
advocate,  wrote  a  dialogue  between  a  Christian  and  »  heathen,  in 


456  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

which  he  defends  Christianity  with  great  spirit.  In  the  first  half  ot 
the  third  century  flourished  Hippolytus,1  the  author  of  many  works 
on  Christianity.  To  this  period  belongs  the  greatest  philosopher, 
and  one  of  the  greatest  scholars,  of  the  ancient  Church,  the  profound 
Origen,  born  about  A.  D.  185,  died  A.  D.  254.  He  wrote  numer 
ous  works  on  the  Scriptures  and  on  theology.  Among  the  learned 
Christian  writers  of  this  period  may  be  named  Dionysius,  bishop  of 
Alexandria  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century;  Methodius,  in 
the  last  half  of  this  century,  in  Western  Asia ;  and  Gregory,  bishop 
of  Neo-Csesarea,  about  the  middle  of  the  century. 

Arnobius,  of  Sicca,  in  Northern  Africa  about  A.  D.  300  wrote  a 
writers  of  the  work  in  seven  books  against  the  Gentiles,  in  which  he 
fourth  century.  dispiavs  great  acuteness,  elegance,  and  power.  About 
the  same  time  the  eloquent  Lactantius  wrote,  in  Nicomedia,  his 
work  on  Christianity.  About  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century 
Pamphilus,  presbyter  of  Caesarea,  in  Palestine,  founded  in  that 
city  a  valuable  public  library,  chiefly  of  ecclesiastical  authors,  and 
was  himself  a  writer.  In  the  first  forty  years  of  the  fourth  century 
flourished  Eusebius,  the  father  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  bishop 
of  Caesarea,  in  Palestine.  He  was  a  man  of  immense  erudition,  and 
the  author  of  numerous  works.. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  name  any  of  the  later  fathers  of  the  Church 
or  other  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  or  to  mention  the  distin 
guished  learned  men  who  wrote  little  or  nothing.  In  every  age 
the  number  of  writers  is  small  in  comparison  with  the  number  of 
learned  men  who  publish  nothing.  They  are  deterred  from  writing 
by  diffidence,  by  the  dislike  of  the  manual  labor  necessary,  and  by 
other  causes.  Who  can  doubt  that  there  were  many  learned  men  in 
the  first  three  centuries  of  the  Church,  of  whom  we  know  nothing? 
Arnobius  (about  A.  D.  300)  speaks  of  men  of  great  genius  who  had 
embraced  the  Christian  faith — orators,  grammarians,  rhetoricians, 
lawyers,  physicians,  and  philosophers.8 

Who  can  doubt  the  ability  of  such  men  as  composed  the  ancient 
Church  to  distinguish  and  transmit  to  posterity  the  genuine  writings 
of  the  apostles  and  their  companions  ? 

Probably  bishop  of  Portus  Romanus,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber. 
*  Quod  tarn  magnis  ingeniis  praediti  oratores,  grammatici,  rhetores,  consulti  juris 
ac  medici,  philosophise  etiam  secreta  rimantes,  magisteria  hsec  expetunt  spretis  qui- 
bus  paulo  ante  fidebant  ? — Ad  versus  Gentes  lib.  ii,  cap.  v. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  457 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE    MFFUSION    OF    THE    GREEK    LANGUAGE    IN    THE    RO 
MAN    EMPIRE    AT    THE    CHRISTIAN    EPOCH. 

A  S  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  written  in  the  Greek  * 
^~**  language,  it  is  an  interesting  question,  To  what  extent  was  this 
language  used  in  the  Roman  empire  at  the  time  of  Christ  ? 

The  wide  diffusion  of  the  Greek  language  as  early  as  B.  C.  61, 
appears  from  a  passage  of  Cicero's  Oration  for  the  Poet  Diffusion  of 
Archias,  written  at  that  time.  "  For  if  any  one  supposes,"  ^1ea|^ere^  *JJ£ 
says  he,  "that  less  fame  is  derived  from  verses  written  times  of  Cicero 
in  Greek  than  from  those  in  Latin,  he  is  greatly  mistaken ;  and  Juvenal- 
because  Greek 2  literature  is  read  in  nearly  all  nations — Latin  literature 
is  confined  within  its  own  limits,  certainly  narrow." 

The  celebrated  Roman  satirist,  Juvenal,  contemporary  with  the 
apostles,  thus  expresses  himself  respecting  the  Greek  language : 
"  Every  thing  is  done  in  Greek.  In  this  language  they  fear ;  in  this 
they  pour  forth  their  wrath,  their  joys,  their  sorrows ;  in  this,  all  the 
secrets  of  their  breasts."8 

Various  causes  conspired  to  spread  widely  the  Greek  language. 
Greece  at  a  very  early  period  planted  colonies  in  South-  Meansbywhich 
ern  Italy  and  in  Southern  Gaul,  in  the  islands  of  the  guagj^cime 
^gean  Sea,  on  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea,  and  in  vari-  widely  spread. 
ous  parts  of  Asia  Minor.  At  a  later  period  the  conquests  of  Alex 
ander  the  Great  in  Asia  and  in  Africa  (B.  C.  334-323)  disseminated 
widely  the  Greek  language  and  literature.  Plutarch  remarks,  that 
"he  founded  above  seventy  cities  among  the  barbarous  people,  and 
sowed  Asia  with  Greek  troops."  He  also  founded  Alexandria  in 
Egypt,  which  became  a  famous  seat  of  Greek  learning.  Seleucus, 
a  successor  of  Alexander,  in  his  extensive  empire  in  Central  and 
Western  Asia,  followed  Alexander's  policy  in  Hellenizing  his  domain. 
**  We  find  him  founding,  in  almost  every  province,  Greek  or  Mace- 

1  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  has  been  generally  supposed  to  have  been  originally 
written  in  Hebrew. 

*Qucd  Grreca  leguntur  in  omnibus  fere  gentibus,  Latina  sui?  inibus,  exiguis  sane. 
continentur. 

"Omnia  Gnece. 

Hoc  sermone  pavent,  hoc  iram,  gaudia,  causas, 
Hoc  cuncta  aftundunt,  animi  secreta. — Sat.  vi,  186-189. 


458  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUD\? 

donian  colonies,  which  became  so  many  centres  of  civilization  and 
refinement."  The  splendid  productions  of  the  Grecian  intellect  in 
the  ages  of  Pericles,  Plato,  and  Demosthenes,  carried  with  them  the 
Greek  language  to  the  most  distant  lands.  Young  men  from  all  sec. 
tions  of  the  world  resorted  to  Athens  to  study  her  literature  and  her 
philosophy,  and,  on  returning  home,  brought  with  them  the  language 
and  letters  of  that  intellectual  metropolis. 

"  It  is  a  just  though  trite  observation,"  says  Gibbon,  "  that  victo 
rious  Rome  was  herself  subdued  by  the  arts  of  Greece.  Those 
immortal  writers,  who  still  command  the  admiration  of  modern 
Europe,  soon  became  the  favourite  object  of  study  and  imitation 
in  Italy  and  the  western  provinces."  '  The  prevailing  language  in 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ  was  Aramaean,  sometimes  called 
Syro-Chaldee,  but  it  was  in  fact  Chaldee  rather  than  Syriac,"  the 
Hebrew  having  ceased  to  be  a  living  language  a  century  or  more 
before  that  epoch. 

Nevertheless,  the  Greek  language  appears  to  have  made  consider 
able  progress  in  some  parts,  at  least,  of  the  Holy  Land,  about  the 
time  of  Christ.  Josephus  speaks  of  Gaza,  Gadara,  and  Hippus  as 
Greek  cities.3  He  calls  Caesarea  the  largest  city  of  Judea,  and  rep 
resents  it  as  inhabited  principally  by  Greeks.4  Dora,  on  the  sea- 
coast  south  of  Carmel,  was  inhabited  chiefly  by  Greeks.5  It  appears 
from  Acts  vi,  9  that  the  Libertini,  Alexandrians,  and  other  foreigners, 
had  synagogues  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  they  used 
the  Greek  language,  at  least  those  from  Alexandria  and  Cyrene. 

It  cannot  be  inferred  from  Acts  xxi,  39~xxii,  2  that  the  crowd  in 
Jerusalem  could  have  understood  St.  Paul  if  he  had  addressed  them 
in  Greek  ijistead  of  Hebrew.  They  had  expected  an  address  in 
Greek,  which  the  larger  portion  of  them  would  not  understand,  but 
when  they  heard  him  using  the  Hebrew  tongue,  which  they  could 
understand,  "  they  kept  the  more  silence."  Josephus,  in  describing 
the  efforts  made  by  Titus  to  induce*  the  Jews  to  surrender  after  he 

1  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  i,  46. 

1  The  translation  of  the  five  books  of  Moses  by  Onkelos,  and  that  of  the  prophets 
by  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel,  into  Chaldee  (Targums),  for  the  use  of  the  Jews  in  Pales 
tine,  about  the  time  of  Christ,  shows  that  this  was  the  common  language.  And  we 
find  in  the  New  Testament  several  Chaldee  expressions,  indicating  the  general  use  of 
that  language  in  Palestine.  In  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  Christ  says,  Abba  (<i.3&i. 
Chaldee,  fc*3!*,  abba),  Father  (Mark  xiv,  36).  On  a  different  occasion,  Talitha 
tutni  (Ta?U#a  KOU/Z,  Chaldee,  or,  perhaps,  Syriac,  Wp  Kfl^Jftp),  Maid,  Arise  (M<uk 
v,  41).  Again.  Ephphatha  (Aramaean,  from  tir.jp),  (Mark  vii,  34).  Golgotha  (Chal 
dee,  »t»lb3^3),  (Matt,  xxvii,  33).  Aceldama  (Chaldee,  fcttH  ^n),  (Acts  i,  19).  Mxr 
vn-atha  (Chaldee,  J*nK  ^),  (i  Cor.  xvi,  22). 

'Antiq.,  xvii,  II,  4.  4Wars,  iii,  9,  i.  5Antiq.,  xix,  6,  3. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  459 

had  brought  the  standards  into  the  sacred  enclosure  belonging  to  the 
temple,  remarks  :  "  Titus,  having  stationed  the  interpreter  near  him, 
which  (or  what),  indeed,  was  a  sign  of  his  being  victor,  first  began  to 
speak."1 

As  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  were  intended  for  a  world 
wide  circulation,  it  was  proper  that  the  books  should  be  written  in 
that  language  which  was  the  most  widely  diffused,  and  at  the  same 
time  was  the  richest  and  most  philosophical  of  human  tongues.  Yet 
as  Christianity  was  first  proposed  to  the  Jewish  people,  there  is  noth 
ing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  one  or  more  of  its  writings 
might  have  been  originally  composed  in  their  vernacular.  Whether 
or  not  this  was  really  the  case  must  be  determined  by  evidence,  the 
consideration  of  which  belongs  to  another  part  of  our  subject. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  GREEK  OF   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

TO  obtain  a  clear  view  of  this  subject,  it  is  proper  to  consider  the 
most  important  dialects  of  the  Greek  language,  the  countries  in 
which  they  were  spoken,  and  the  elements  that  entered  Iraportant  dji^ 
into  the  formation  of  the  language  in  which  the  New  lects  of  the 
Testament  was  written.  The  most  ancient  dialect  of  Greek  tongue- 
the  Greek  with  which  we  are  acquainted  is  the  Ionic,  the  language 
of  the  earlier  inhabitants  of  Attica,  who  were  called  lonians.  They 
spread  over  the  northern  parts  of  the  Peloponnesus,  occupied  the 
Cyclades,  and  colonized  a  portion  of  Asia  Minor.  Homer  and 
Hesiod  are  the  earliest  representatives  of  this  dialect.  In  the  fifth 
century  before  Christ  Herodotus  and  Hippocrates  wrote  in  it.  The 
Doric  dialect  was  used  in  the  Peloponnesus,  and  in  the  Dorian  col 
onies  in  Asia  Minor,  Italy,  and  Sicily.  The  great  lyric  poet  Pindar 
wrote  in  it  about  B.  C.  500.  The  ALolic  prevailed  in  Bceotia,  Thes- 
saly,  and  in  the  ^olian  colonies  in  Asia  Minor.  In  this  dialect  the 
lyrical  poetess  Sappho  wrote,  about  B.  C.  600. 

As  Athens  was  the  great  centre  of  political  power  and  attraction 
during  a  great  part  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  "  all  the  dia 
lects  met  there,  and  the  Athenians  culled  from  each  of  them  such 
fcrms  and  expressions  as  were  calculated  to  add  strength  and  ele 
gance  to  their  own  Ionic  idiom.  This  confluence  of  dialects  pro- 

lTlrof  .  .  .  TOV  Ippjivea  7rapo<7ra<7ti//evof,  birep  f]v  TeKfiyptov  TOV  uparelv  Trpwraf  fip£- 
CTO  faysiv. — Wars,  lib.  vi,  6,  2.  This  clearly  shows  that  Titus  spoke  to  the  Jews  bf 
an  interpreter,  and  that  the  mass  did  not  understand  Greek. 


460  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

duced  the  Attic  dialect,  technically  so  called.  In  point  of  develop 
ment  and  richness  of  literature  this  stood  at  the  head  of  all  the  Greek 
dialects.  The  natural  consequence  of  such  pre-eminence  was,  that 
Greeks  from  all  the  tribes  repaired  to  Athens  to  obtain  a  finished 
education.  .  .  .  Now  persons  from  whatever  part  of  Greece,  edu 
cated  at  Athens,  would  by  preference  use  the  dialect  of  Athens 
And  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  that  their  example  would  natu 
rally  be  followed  by  their  kinsmen,  pupils,  friends,  and  dependents."' 

In  the  Attic  dialect  wrote  the  great  philosophers  Plato  and  Ans- 
totle;  the  historians  Thucydides  and  Xenophon;  the  tragic  writers 
^Eschylus,  Sophocles,  and  Euripides;  the  comic  writer  Aristoph 
anes  ;  the  orator  Demosthenes,  and  various  others,  who  flourished 
in  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  before  Christ,  and  have  made  that 
period  of  Grecian  history  forever  illustrious.  The  great  writers  in  this 
dialect  spread  it  far  and  wide,  and  gave  it  the  mastery  over  the  others. 
"After  the  freedom  of  the  Greeks  had  been  destroyed  by  Philip,  king 
of  Macedon,  the  Attic  dialect  came  to  be  the  common  written  language. 
As  it  extended  not  only  over  all  Greece,  but  also  over  the  Macedonian 
provinces  of  Syria  and  Egypt,  it  lost  much  of  its  peculiar  stamp  by 
the  introduction  of  foreign  forms  arid  words,  and  it  then  received  the 
name  of  the  common,  or  Hellenic,  language,  i]  Koivr\,  or  'EyUf/w/cT?  did- 
ACKTOC.  It  was  used,  e.  g.,  by  Apollodorus,  Diodorus,  and  Plutarch."11 

It  appears  that  the  language  of  the  Athenians  could  be  generally 
understood  by  the  Macedonians,  and  as  the  latter  had  no  literature, 
the  colonies  founded  by  Alexander  and  his  successors  naturally  re 
ceived  their  literature  from  Athens;  and  thus  the  Attic  dialect,  used 
so  extensively,  assumed  before  the  time  of  Christ  the  form  called 
"common." 

This  common  Greek,  when  used  by  the  Jews,  assumed  the  form 
Characteristics  ca^e<^  Hellenistic^  from  the  name  Hellenists,  given  to 
of  Hellenistic  those  Jews  who  spoke  that  language  (Acts  vi,  i).  It 
abounds  more  or  less  in  Hebrew  and  Aramaean  idioms, 
and  in  words  used  in  new  senses  from  the  fact  that  they  are  em 
ployed  to  express  new  ideas.  In  this  idiom  the  Septuagint  and  the 
apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  written,  and  it  is  the 
vehicle  which  the  writers*  of  the  New  Testament  used  wherewith  to  %ivt 
a  permanent  form  to  the  great  truths  revealed  in  the  gospel. 

1  Sophocles,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Lexicon  of  the  Greek  of  the  R«man  and 
Byzantine  Period.  Boston,  1870. 

*  Kxihner,  Dialects  of  the  Greek  Language,  in  his  Grammar,  p.  14. 

"  Matthew's  Gospel,  according  to  the  ancients,  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew 
(or,  rather,  Aramaean).  Some  have  thought  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  wa» 
originally  written  in  the  same  language. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  461 

As  the  Greek  language  was  of  heathen  growth,  it  sometimes  lacked 
words  wherewith  to  express  clearly  the  ideas  of  the  Christian  reve 
lation.  Hence  the  New  Testament  writers  were  compelled  to  give 
to  some  of  the  words  of  the  language  novel  meanings.  It  is  true 
that  the  translators  of  the  Old  Testament  had  already  led  the  way 
by  rendering  into  Greek  the  moral  and  religious  truths  of  the  Old 
Covenant.  But  their  vocabulary  was  not  extensive  enough  to  express 
charly  and  appropriately  all  the  truths -of  the  New. 

That  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  should,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  use  Hebrew  and  Aramaean  modes  of  thought  and  expression 
was  to  be  expected,  from  the  fact  that  all  of  them,  except  Luke,  had 
had  a  Hebrew  education  ;  and  although  his  education  may  have  been 
originally  Greek,  yet  his  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  his  inti 
macy  with  Hebrews,  would  be  likely  to  impart  something  of  a  He 
brew  cast  even  to  his  mode  of  writing. 

As  examples  of  Hebraisms  or  Aramaeisms  may  be  named,  Aaju- 

Bdveiv  TTpoauiTov,  from  the  Hebrew  D'JD  mi,  to  accept  ones 

• »      » T  Examples      of 

person;  fyreiv  i^v^v,  from  l?3J  &7P3,  to  seek  one's  life;  bfaL    New  Testament 

v  *      '» '  Hebraisms. 

a<pievat,  to  forgive  sin  (debt),  from  the  Aramaean 
p3Br,  to  release,  or  forgive  debt  or  sin  (so  the  Targum  of  Onkelos 
on  Gen.  iv,  13) ;  yevEatiai  tiavdrov,  to  taste  death,  to  die,  from  the  Ara 
maean  JiTD  DjN3,  to  taste  death,  to  die  (Targum  of  Jerusalem  on  Deut. 
xxxii,  i) ;  noteiv  eAeof  perd  TJVOC,  to  show  compassion  or  kindness  to  any 
one,  from  the  Hebrew  Dj»  non  rwv ;  aprov  0ayeh>,  to  take  a  meal,  from 
the  Hebrew  DnS  SDX;  alpa  eK%eeiv,  to  pour  forth  blood,  to  kill,  from 
DT  !j3Bf,  to  shed  blood,  etc. 

The  New  Testament  writers  also  imitated  the  Hebrew  in  the  use 
of  the  preposition  ev,  in,  for  3  (beth),  with,  in,  etc.,  in  many  instances 
in  which  the  proper  rendering  is  with.  As  the  Hebrew  language  is 
simpler  in  its  structure  than  the  Greek,  co-ordinating  rather  than 
subordinating  its  sentences,  and  uses  but  few  partie  es,  we  find  that 
in  these  points  the  sacred  writers  have  also  imitated  the  Hebrew. 


4G2  INTRODUCTION  TO  THL  STUDY 


CHAPTER  V. 

ANCIFNT  GREEK    MANUSCRIPTS    OF    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT, 

rFNHE  autographs  of  the  New  Testament  writers  appear  to  have 
*•  perished  at  quite  an  early  period.  Whether  any  of  them 
reached  the  third  century,  is  very  doubtful.  Tertullian,  indeed 
(about  A.  D.  200),  appeals  against  heretics  to  the  autographs  of 
Paul's  Epistles  as  still  existing  in  different  Churches.1  But  as  1  er- 
tullian  wrote  at  Carthage,  the  value  of  his  testimony  respecting 
autographs  in  European  and  Asiatic  Churches  is  not  very  great; 
yet  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  statement. 

In  the  Apostolic  Age  the  most  common  writing  material  was  the 
Egyptian  papyrus,  although  parchment  was  also  in  use.  John,  in 
his  Second  Epistle,  speaks  of  writing  with  paper  (tiia  %dprov)  (ver 
12),  and  Paul  directs  Timothy  to  bring  with  him  the  books  (ra  (3if3Ma, 
properly  paper  books),  but  especially  the  parchments  (rdc  pe[i(3pdva$ 
skins,  parchments].  2  Tim.  iv,  13.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  short 
epistles  would  be  written  upon  papyrus,  and  large  and  very  important 
works  on  parchments.  Which  of  these  materials  was  most  used  by 
the  New  Testament  writers  cannot  be  determined.  Numerous 
copies  of  the  original  manuscripts  were  very  soon  made  and  spread 
over  the  Christian  world,  and  the  frequent  handling  and  copying  of 
these  manuscripts,  especially  if  they  were  of  papyrus,  must  have 
contributed  to  their  destruction. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  soon  after  A.  D.  330  gave  directions 
to  Eusebius  to  have  Jiffy  copies  of  the  Divine  Scriptures  executed 
upon  skins  in  the  highest  style  of  the  calligraphic  art  for  the  use  of 
the  Churches  in  Constantinople.8  After  this  period  it  appears  to 
have  been  quite  common  to  use  parchment  in  copying  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

"  In  the  fourth  century,"  says  Tischendorf,  "  the  more  durable 
parchment  was  preferred  to  the  papyrus,  and  of  such  writings  [of 
the  New  Testament]  on  parchments,  executed  in  the  fourth,  fifth, 
and  sixth  centuries,  we  possess,  though  mostly  of  small  compass, 
still  more  than  twenty,  to  which  some  thirty  belonging  to  the  seventh, 

1 "  Run  over  the  Apostolic  Churches  in  which  still  the  chairs  themselves  of  th« 
Apostles  preside  in  their  places,  in  which  their  vety  original  letters  are  read,"  etc. 
Lib.  De  Praescrip.,  cap  xxxvi. 

8  De  Vita  Constantini,  lib.  iv,  cap.  xxxvi. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  433 

eighth,  and  ninth  centuries,  are  to  be  added."  He  also  adds : 
"  The  entire  Greek  Literature,  which  consists  of  so  many  hundred 
works,  has  not  by  far  the  tenth  part  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  highest 
antiquity  to  exhibit,  which  the  Greek  New  Testament  alone  pos 
sesses."  l 

The  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  new  Testament  are  written  ir\ 
uncial  letters  (from  uncia,  an  inch),  which  for  the  most  part  are 
Greek  capitals.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  the  beginning  or  end 
of  a  word. 

The  uncial  letters  were  employed  until  the  ninth  century,  when 
they  were  gradually  changed  into  the  cursive  letters  which  were 
commonly  in  use  in  the  tenth  century.  The  first  manuscript  in 
cursive  letters  with  which  we  are  acquainted  was  written  A.  D.  890.' 
Scrivener  gives  catalogues  of  sixty-one  uncial  and  six  hundred 
and  forty-two  cursive  MSS.  of  the  Gospels;  fourteen  uncial  and 
two  hundred  and  fifty-two  cursive  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epis 
tles;  twenty-two  uncial  and  two  hundred  and  ninety-five  cursive 
of  Paul's  epistles;  five  uncial  and  one  hundred  and  eleven  cursive 
of  the  Apocalypse ;  three  hundred  and  thirty-nine  Evangelistaria. 
and  eighty-two  Lectionaries  of  the  Praxapostolos.3 

Dean  Burgon  sent  Scrivener  (July,  1883)  a  catalogue  "of  about 
three  hundred  additional  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  or  portions 
thereof  deposited  in  European  libraries,  but  hitherto  unknown  to 
scholars,  which  must  hereafter  be  examined  and  collated  by  com 
petent  persons."4  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Latin  versions 
of  the  New  Testament  were  almost  exclusively  used  in  Western 
Europe  from  the  early  centuries  of  Christianity,  which  explains 
the  fact  that  we  have  not  a  still  greater  number  of  Greek  manu 
scripts. 

Of  the  UNCIAL  manuscripts  we  name,  as  most  important : 

CODEX  SINAITICUS  (&). 

This  important  Codex,  containing  the  entire  New  Testament,  a 
part  of  the  Old,  the  complete  epistle  of  Barnabas  in  Greek,  and  a 
part  of  the  Hermae  Pastor,  was  discovered  in  the  convent  of  St. 
Catharine,  on  Mount  Sinai,  in  February,  1859,  by  Tischendorf. 

In  1862  Tischendorf  published  a  magnificent  fac-simile  edition 
of  this  Codex  in  four  volumes,  from  type  made  for  the  special  pur- 

1  Haben  Wir  den  achten  Schriftext  der  Evangelisten  und  Apostel  ?  p.  9.  Leip 
zig,  1873- 

aHug,  Einleitung,  Erst.  Theil.,  4te  Aufl.,  p.  212. 

8  Introd.  Crit.  New  Test.,  p.  307,  3d  ed.,  1883.  4  Ibid.,  pp.  ix,  x. 


464  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

: 

pose.  The  Codex  is  written  on  fine  parchment  with  four  columns 
on  a  page,  without  division  of  word,  accents,  or  breathings.  It 
contains  the  sections  of  Ammonius  and  the  canons  of  Eusebius.1 
Tischendorf  brings  cogent  reasons  for  referring  it  to  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century.  And  Tregelles  remarks:  "It  appears  undoubu 
edly  to  belong  to  the  fourth  century."  It  is  now  in  St.  Petersburg, 
the  property  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia. 

In  1863  Tischendorf  published  the  New  Testament  portion  of  the 
manuscript,  line  for  line  and  page  for  page,  and  in  1865  there  was 
published  in  Leipzig,  by  Brockhaus,  *"  Novum  Testamentum  Graecae 
ex  Sinaitico  Codice,"  etc.,  with  Prolegomena  by  Tischendorf. 

As  the  first  letters  of  the  Roman  Alphabet  had  been  already  ap 
propriated  to  the  oldest  codices  of  the  New  Testament,  Tischen 
dorf  designates  this  Codex  by  the  first  letter  of  the  Hebrew  al 
phabet,  Aleph  (JK). 

CODEX    ALEXANDRINUS    (A). 

This  celebrated  Codex,  now  found  in  the  British  Museum,  was 
once  in  possession  of  Cyril  Lucar,  at  one  time  Patriarch  of  Alexan 
dria,  and  afterwards  of  Constantinople,  and  was  presented  by  him 
to  Charles  I.,  in  1629. 

"The  portion  containing  the  New  Testament  is  a  volume  meas 
uring  somewhat  more  than  ten  inches  wide  and  fourteen  inches 
high.  The  material  is  thin,  fine,  and  very  beautiful  vellum,  often 
discolored  at  the  edges,  which  have  been  injured  by  time,  but  more  by 
the  ignorance  or  carelessness  of  the  modern  binder,  who  has  not  always 
spared  the  text,  especially  at  the  upper-inner  margin.  The  manu 
script  is  written  in  a  light  and  elegant  hand  in  uncial  letters.  These 
letters  at  the  end  of  a  line  are  often  very  small,  and  much  of  the 
writing  is  very  pale  and  faint ;  each  page  contains  two  columns  of 
text.  In  the  margins,  to  the  left  hand,  the  Eusebian  canons  are 
noted  throughout  the  four  Gospels,  as  well  as  the  larger  sections 
into  which  these  books  were  anciently  divided."  8  There  is  no  reg 
ular  division  of  words. 

From  the  commencement  of  the  volume,  about  twenty  leaves  are 
wanting,  so  that  of  Matthew's  Gospel  we  have  only  what  follows 
xxv,  6.  In  the  Gospel  of  John  two  leaves  are  missing,  which  con 
tained  the  text  from  vi,  50  to  viii,  52.  From  the  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  three  leaves  are  absent,  leaving  a  hiatus  from 
chap,  iv,  13  to  xii,  7.  All  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  is  quite 
entire.  The  Codex  is  referred  by  Tischendorf  to  the  last  part  of 

1  Tischendorf  is  positive  that  they  are  not  from  the  original  scribe. 
8  Cowper's  edition  of  the  Cod.  Alex.     Introduction. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  46S 

\\iefifth  century,  and  by  Tregelles  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century 
or  a  little  later. 

The  New  Testament  portion  of  the  Codex  was  published  in  fac 
simile  by  C.  G.  Woide,  in  1786,  in  folio,  accompanied  with  admi 
rable  prologomena  and  notes.  In  1860  B.  H.  Cowper  published  a 
beautiful  edition  of  the  New  Testament  from  this  Codex.  The 
trustees  of  the  British  Museum  have  ordered  the  publication 'of 
a  facsimile  of  this  Codex,  of  which  two  volumes  in  folio  have  al 
ready  appeared. 

CODEX    VAT1CANUS  (B). 

This  Codex,  so  called  from  the  celebrated  Vatican  Library  at 
Rome,  where  it  is  found,  contains  all  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
exception  of  Heb.  ix,  i^-xiii,  the  Epistles  to  Philemon,  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse.  It  is  a  quarto  volume  of  one  hun 
dred  and  forty-six  leaves,  bound  in  red  morocco,  ten  and  a  half 
inches  high,  ten  broad,  and  four  and  a  half  thick.  It  is  written  on 
fine  thin  vellum,  with  three  columns  on  a  page.  There  is  no  space 
left  between  the  words,  but  all  the  letters  in  a  line  have  the  appear 
ance  of  forming  a  single  word. 

Hug  refers  the  Codex  to  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  century.' 
Tischendorf  refers  it  to  the  fourth  century,  and  remarks :  "  It 
scarcly  differs  in  age  from  the  Codex  Sinaiticus." 

Cardinal  Mai  published  an  edition  of  this  manuscript  in  1857  and 
in  1859;  the  second  edition  is  an  improvement  on  the  first.  In 
1867  Tischendorf  published,  at  Leipsic,  a  new  quarto  edition  of  this 
famous  Codex,  in  which  he  corrected  more  than  400  errors  of  the 
editions  of  Cardinal  Mai. 

CODEX   EPHRAEMI    RESCRIPTUS  (C). 

This  manuscript,  found  at  present  in  the  Imperial  Library  of 
Paris,  "  is  a  most  valuable  palimpsest  containing  portions  of  the 
Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament  on  64  leaves,  and  frag 
ments  of  every  part  of  the  New  on  143  leaves,  amounting  on  the 
whole  to  less  than  two  thirds  of  the  volume.  .  .  .  The  ancient 
writing  is  barely  legible,  having  been  almost  removed  about  the 
twelfth  century  to  receive  some  Greek  works  of  St.  Ephraem,  the 
Great  Syrian  Father."*  It  is  written  on  vellum  with  one  column  on 

1  The  manuscript  breaks  off  in  the  midst  of  this  verse.     The  manuscript,  how- 
ever,  contains  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  by  a  later  hand. 
8Einleitung,  Erst.  Thiel.,  4te  Auf.,  p.  238. 
3  Scrivener,  pp.  117,  118,  3d  ed.,  1883. 

VOL.  L— 30 


466  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

a  page.  Tischendorf  ascribes  it  to  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  cen 
tury.  He  published  in  1843  a  facsimile  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
portion. 

CODEX    BEZAE    GRAECO-LATINUS  (-D). 

This  Codex  is  now  found  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge. 
England.  It  was  presented  to  the  university  in  1581  by  Theodore 
Beza.  It  is  a  quarto  volume,  in  vellum,  10  inches  high  by  8  broad, 
containing  414  leaves,  with  one  column  on  a  page,  the  Greek  text 
and  its  Latin  version  being  parallel.  There  are  on  every  page  33 
lines  of  unequal  length  called  <m%ot,  being  the  earliest  manuscript 
thus  written.1 

The  following  is  a  specimen  of  its  lines  (<m%ot)  translated  into 
English : 

Then  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  likened  unto 

Ten  virgins,  who,  taking 

Their  lamps, 

Went  forth  to  meet  the  bridegroom 

And  the  bride  (Matt,  xxv,  i). 

This  Codex  contains 9  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It 
is  assigned  by  .Tischendorf  to  about  the  middled  the  sixth  century. 
To  this  century  Tregelles  also  ascribes  it,  and  remarks,  it  "  is  of 
great  value,  in  spite  of  its  peculiarities  and  interpolations."  It 
was  edited  by  Kipling  in  1793,  and  more  recently  with  great  care 
by  Scrivener. 

CODEX    CLAROMONTANUS    (D). 

This  Codex  is  now  found  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  "It 
belongs,"  says  Tregelles,  "apparently  to  the  sixth  century:  it  con 
tains  all  the  fourteen  Pauline  Epistles  in  Greek  and  Latin." 

CODEX    LAUDIANUS    (E). 

This  Codex  contains  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  Latin  and  Greek. 
It  is  referred  by  Tischendorf  to  the  last  part  of  the  sixth  century, 
and  Tregelles  thinks  it  probably  belongs  to  that  century.  It  is 
found  in  Oxford. 

CODEX    ROSSANENSIS. 

This  Codex  contains  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  entire  and  that  of 
Mark  as  far  as  the  middle  of  the  last  chapter.  It  belongs  to  the 
sixth  century.  It  was  discovered  at  Rossanos,  in  Calabria,  in  the 
spring  of  1879  by  O.  V.  Gebhardt  and  A.  Harnack. 

CURSIVE   MANUSCRIPTS. 

Of  the  numerous  manuscripts  in  the  cursive  characters,  we  name 
as  most  important : 

1  Scrivener,  pp.  120,  et  seq.,  3d  ed.,  1883.  *Not  entire. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  467 

CODEX    BASILIENSIS   (l). 

This  Codex  is  found  at  Basel.  It  contains  all  the  New  Testament 
except  the  Apocalypse ;  but  is  of  importance  in  its  text  in  the  Gos 
pels  only.  It  belongs  to  the  tenth  century. 

CODEX   COLBERTINUS    (33). 

This  Codex  is  found  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris.  "  The  most 
important  in  its  text  of  the  Cursive  copies  of  the  New  Testament," 
says  Tregelles,  "  all  of  which,  except  the  Revelation,  it  contained ; 
but  now  it  is  defective  in  several  places,  and  throughout  is  much  in 
jured.  Of  the  eleventh  century." 

CODEX    LEICESTRENSIS   (69). 

This  Codex  belongs  to  the  Town  Council  of  Leicester.  It  is  of 
the  fourteenth  century.  It  contains  nearly  all  the  New  Testament. 

CODEX    TISCHENDORFII    ACTORUM    (6l). 

This  Codex  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Collated  by  Tregelles 
and  Scrivener.  It  is  considered  a  valuable  manuscript. 

Many  of  the  Uncial  manuscripts  contain  mere  fragments  of  the 
New  Testament.  Tischendorf  has  especially  distinguished  himself 
in  collecting  and  publishing  the  most  valuable  of  them,  in  his  "  Monu- 
menta  Sacra  Inedita,"  seven  volumes  of  which  appeared  in  1855-70. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ANCIENT   VERSIONS   OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 
THE   PESHITO   SYRIAC. 

PHE  most  important  of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testament 
•*•  is  that  called  The  Peshito1  Syriac.  Syriac,  at  the  Christian 
epoch,  and  for  centuries  later,  was  the  language  of  the  region  north 
of  Palestine,  extending  from  the  north-eastern  coast  of  the  Mediter 
ranean  Sea  to  the  river  Tigris,  embracing,  as  its  chief  seat,  Northern 
Mesopotamia,  of  which  the  most  important  city  was  Edessa. 

Now  as  Christianity  was  firmly  established  in  this  city  as  early  as 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  if  not  earlier,  it  is  extremely 
probable  that,  with  its  introduction,  the  New  Testament  would  be 
translated  into  the  language  of  that  city  and  region.  It  is  a  well- 
*The  name  PesMto,  from  pes hat,  means  simple,  plain,  correct ;  Chaldee,  the  same. 


4(j8  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

known  fact  that  our  modern  missionaries  as  soon  as  possible  trans 
late  the  New  Testament  into  the  language  of  the  people  to  be 
Christianized.  Nor  was  the  usage  different  in  ancient  times.  What 
strengthens  the  great  probability  that  a  Syriac  version  of  the  New 
Testament  was  made  as  early  as  about  A.  D.  150,  is  the  fact  that 
we  find  a  flourishing  Syriac  literature  at  Edessa  soon  after  that  time 
Bardesanes, !  a  distinguished  Christian  writer,  who  flourished  at 
Edessa  about  A.  D.  160-170,  in  the  reign  of  Abgar  Bar  Mann, 
wrote  many  volumes  in  Syriac,  among  them  a  "  Book  of  the  Laws  of 
Countries,"3  mentioned  by  Jerome,  and  quoted  largely  by  Eusebius 
as  a  work  on  "Fate."  He  composed  also  in  Syriac  "a  hundred  and 
fifty  Psalms,  elegantly  versified."  Jerome  remarks  that  the  follow 
ers  of  Bardesanes  translated  his  works  into  Greek.  "  If  their  power 
and  elegance,"  says  he,  "  are  so  great  in  a  translation,  how  great 
they  must  have  been  in  the  original ! " 

It  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  Syriac  literature,  with  so  much  ele 
gance,  began  with  Bardesanes,  and  we  are,  therefore,  authorized  in 
believing  that  the  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament  could  have 
been  made  at  least  a  fourth  of  a  century  before  his  time.  With  the 
foregoing  facts  before  us,  we  cannot,  with  any  probability,  refer  the 
earliest  Syriac  version  to  a  period  later  than  the  middle  of  the 
second  century. 

The  strong  probability  of  this  eaily  date  of  the  translation  is  ren 
dered  quite  certain  by  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  was  trans 
lated  into  Syriac  about  that  time,  since  it  is  quoted  both  by  Melito  * 
(A.  D.  170)  and  Origen*  (A.  D.  200-254);  and  no  one  will  suppose 
that  Christian  scholars  would  translate  the  Old  Testament  into 
Syriac  before  the  New.  Hegesippus  (about  A.  D.  170)  appears  to 
have  been  acquainted  with  a  Syriac  version  of  the  Gospel  of  Mat 
thew.  For  Eusebius  states  that  this  writer  "  introduces  some  things 
both  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  from  the 

1  Epiphanius  says  that  "  he  was  skilled  in  two  languages,  both  the  Greek  dialect 
and  the  language  of  the  Syrians."  Haeresis  LVL 

*  The  original  work,  long  lost,  was  brought  from  the  Syrian  convent  in  the  desert 
of  Nitriae,  in  Egypt,  to  England  in  1843,  and  translated  into  English,  and  published 
by  Cureton  in  1855  In  this  book  it  is  stated:  "But  as  yesterday  the  Romans 
took  Arabia,  and  abrogated  all  their  ancient  laws."  This  occurred  in  the  time  of 
Marcus  Aurelius,  and  fixes  the  age  of  the  work. 

8  In  commenting  on  Gen.  xxii,  13,  Melito  says,  instead  of  "  Karex^vof  ruv 
Ktparuv  (caught  by  the  horns)  both  THE  SYRIAC  and  the  Hebrew  read,  «p£/zu/*evof, 
(hanging  lay  the  horns).  In  Routh's  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  vol.  i,  p.  118,  from  two  Vat. 
manuscripts. 

4  In  various  places  in  his  Hexapla,  as  'O  Zfyoj-,  (the  Syriac  ;)  on  Gen.  iv,  I,  4 1 
\riii,  7,  etc. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTLRES.  469 

Syii.ic  (Gospel),  and  especially  from  the  Hebrew  dialect  "  I( 
seems  improbable  that  by  "the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Syriac,"  one  single  form  or  version  of  the  Gospel  is  in 
tended.  Eusebius  must  have  known  that  there  was  a  Syriac  trans 
lation  of  all  the  universally  acknowledged  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  and  that  by  his  expression  the  Syriac  translation  of  Matthew's 
Gospel  would  be  understood. 

The  Peshito  version  is  quoted  by  Ephraem,  the  Syrian  (f  A.  D.  378). 
It  was  universally  circulated  among  the  Syrians  in  his  time,  and 
accordingly  he  speaks  of  it  as  our  version,  which  he  would  scarcely 
have  done  had  it  not  then  obtained  general  authority.  Besides,  it 
has  been  shown  by  Wiseman  that  many  expressions  in  it  were  either 
unintelligible  to  Ephraem,  or  at  least  obscure.  a  This  affords 
strong  proof  of  its  high  antiquity.  The  traditions  of  the  Syrian 
Church  attribute  the  translation  to  Achaeus,  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle 
Thaddeus.  The  version  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  valuable  that 
have  ever  been  made,  and  expresses  faithfully  the  original  Greek. 
It  cannot  be  determined  whether  it  is  the  work  of  a  single  trans 
lator,  or  of  several. 

The  Peshito  version  contains  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
except  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  the  Second 
and  Third  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse.  It  first  became  known  to 
Europeans  in  1552,  when  Ignatius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  sent  to  Pope 
Julius  III.,  in  Rome,  Moses  of  Mardm  to  present  his  confession  of 
faith,  and  to  superintend  the  printing  of  the  Syriac  New  Testament 
in  Europe.  Accordingly,  the  version  was  printed  in  Vienna,  in  1555, 
from  two  ancient  manuscripts,  under  the  superintendence  of  the 
Austrian  chancellor,  Albert  Widmanstadt,  and  Moses  of  Mardin,  at 
the  expense  of  King  Ferdinand  I.  In  this  edition  there  are  want- 
ing  Second  Peter,  Jude,  Second  and  Third  John,  and  the  Apoca 
lypse.8  Subsequently  various  editions  of  this  version  were  printed 
in  different  parts  of  Europe. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  that  of  Jude,  and  Second  and  Third 
John  were  published  at  Leyden,  in  1630,  by  Edward  Pococke  from  a 
Syriac  manuscript  found  in  the  Bodleian  Library.  The  Apocalypse 
was  published  by  Louis  De  Dieu,  at  Leyden,  in  1627,  from  a  Syriac 
manuscript,  quite  modern,  found  in  the  London  Library. 


re  row  *a#'  'E/3pa/ovf  ^EvayyeAtoi;  KOI  TOW  Svpm/co*,  «u  idiuf  kit  r^a  ' 

Ttva  Ti&jjaiv.  Hist.  Eccles.,  iv,  c,  22.  Hug  supposes  the  reference  to  be 
to  the  Syriac  translation  of  the  Gospel.  Einleitung,  Erst.  Theil,  p.  317.  Vierte 
Auflage. 

2  Wiseman's  Horag  Syriacae,  p.  121. 

*A  copy  of  this  first  edition,  bearing  date,  Vienna,  1555,  lies  before  me. 


470  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

In  1708  and  in  1717  Leusden  and  Schaaf's  editions  of  the  Peshito 
were  published  at  Leyden.  The  second  of  these  editions  is  espe 
cially  excellent.  Schaff  published,  in  1708,  *  the  best  Lexicon  of  the 
Peshito  that  has  yet  appeared.  In  these  editions  Second  Peter, 
Jude,  Second  and  Third  John  were  inserted  from  the  texts  of  Po- 
cocke  and  Louis  De  Dieu. 

In  1816  the  British  Bible  Society  published  an  edition  of  the 
Peshito  New  Testament,  under  the  supervision  of  Dr.  Buchanan  and 
Professor  Lee,  with  the  Eastern  Church  lessons  noted  in  Syriac. 
The  British  Bible  Society  published  another  edition  of  this  ver 
sion  in  1826,'  a  very  superior  one,  with  vowel  points,  4to.,  for  the 
Oriental  Christians,  as  it  is  stated  on  the  title-page,  and  corrected 
according  to  Old  Syriac  manuscripts.  Both  of  these  editions  con 
tain  in  the  text  of  Pococke  and  L.  De  Dieu  the  five  books  wanting 
in  the  Peshito. 

In  1828  Samuel  Bagster  published  both  in  his  Polyglot,  and 
also  in  a  small  octavo  volume,  the  Peshito,  with  vowel  points.  It 
includes  every  one  of  our  New  Testament  books,  and  in  the  Syriac 
preface  to  the  small  octavo  edition  it  is  stated :  "  This  edition  has 
been  printed  from  the  sacred  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  Syriac, 
which  were  published  by  Albert  Widmanstadt,  and  Moses  of  Mardin, 
and  by  Louis  De  Dieu,  and  Edward  Pococke."  So  far  as  we  have 
compared  this  edition  with  that  published  by  the  British  Bible  So 
ciety  in  1826  we  find  scarcely  any  difference  whatever  in  the  text. 
Bagster  has  also  published  "  Gutbir's  Lexicon  Syriacum,"  con 
taining  all  the  words,  except  the  proper  names,  in  the  Syriac  Testa 
ment. 

The  American  missionaries  in  Oroomiah  published  in  1846  the 
Peshito  New  Testament,  with  a  modern  Syriac  translation  standing 
opposite  to  it.  The  Peshito  has  been  translated  into  English  and 
published  in  the  United  States  by  Dr.  Murdock. 

Among  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  Peshito  Syriac  Testament 
may  be  named  two  in  the  British  Museum,  one  bearing  the  date  of 
A.  D.  468;'  the  other  was  written  at  Bethkoki  in  A.  D.  768. 
"  There  is  a  Syriac  manuscript  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Vatican,  writ 
ten  at  Edessa,  in  Mesopotamia,  bearing  the  date  corresponding  to 
A.  D.  548,  and  one  in  the  Medicean  Library,  dated  A.  D.  586." 

William  Cureton  found  among  the  Syriac  manuscripts  brought 

1  This  appears  to  be  the  date  in  the  copy  before  us. 

1  That  is  the  date  it  bears  ;  but  as  we  have  not  that  of  1816  we  cannot  tell  whethef 
there  is  any  difference  of  text 

3 1  saw  this  in  the  British  Museum  about  ten  years  ago. 
4  W.  W.  Wright's  Appendix  to  Seiler's  Bib.  Herm 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  471 

from  the  Nitrian  desert  by  Archdeacon  Tattam,  in  1842,  for  the 
British  Museum,  "  remains  of  a  very  ancient  recension  of  the  four 
Gospels  in  Syriac,  hitherto  unknown  in  Europe,"  which  he  pub 
lished,  accompanied  with  an  English  translation,  in  1858.  These 
fragments  are  written  in  the  Estrangelo  characters,  and  contiin 
nearly  three  fourths  of  each  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
about  one  third  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  the  last  four  verses  of 
Mark's  Gospel.  1 1  this  recension  the  order  of  the  gospels  is,  Mat- 
tliew,  Mark,  John,  Luke. 

Cureton  refers  the  fragments  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  cfntury. 
In  comparing  some  years  ago  a  part  of  this  Syriac  text  with  Bag- 
ster's  edition  of  the  Peshito,  we  satisfied  ourselves  that  it  is  less 
elegant  than  the  Peshito,  and  that  it  is  probably  an  older  version. 
Tischendorf  places  the  Syriac  version,  of  which  these  fragments 
form  a  part,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  the  Pe 
shito  at  the  end  of  that  century.  Tregelles  also  regards  these  frag 
ments  as  belonging  to  a  version  older  than  the  Peshito.  This  is 
also  the  opinion  of  Ewald. 

Cureton  believes  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  this  recension  is 
based  on  the  Syro-Chaldee  gospel  of  that  evangelist.  But  after  a 
careful  comparison  of  Cureton's  text  with  the  Peshito  and  the  Greek, 
we  satisfied  ourselves  that  Cureton's  text  is  taken  from  the  Greek 
Matthew.  Prof.  Wright,  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  England, 
a  few  years  ago,  printed  for  private  circulation  a  hundred  copies  of 
other  "  fragments  of  the  Curetonian  (Syriac)  gospels  "  in  Estrangelo 
characters,  namely:  Luke  xv,  22-xvi,  12;  xvii,  1-23;  John  vii, 
37~viii,  19.  The  account  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  (vii, 
53-viii,  12)  is  wanting  in  this  section. 

The  Peshito  version,  as  it  stands  in  the  most  ancient  extant  man 
uscripts,  is  an  important  witness  in  settling  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  a  critical  edition  based  upon  a  collation  of  its  old 
est  existing  manuscripts  would  be  a  work  of  great  value,  and  is 
much  needed. 

THE    PHILOXENIAN    TRANSLATION. 

This  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament  takes  its  name  from 
Philoxenus,  or  Xenaias,  Bishop  of  Mabug,  (or  Hierapolis,)  in  Syria, 
(A.D.  488-518,)  in  whose  time  the  translation  forming  its  basis  was 
made  by  Polycarp,  his  country  bishop,  in  A.D.  508.  G.  H.  Bern 
stein  gives  substantially  as  the  result  of  his  inquiries  respecting  the 
subsequent  revision  of  this  version  the  following  statement :  Thom 
as  of  Charkel  lived  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  or  at  the  beginning  of 
the  seventh  century,  and  was  Bishop  of  Mabug,  from  which  as  an 


472  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

exile  he  sought  Egypt,  and  while  living  at  Alexandria,  in  the  convent 
of  the  Antonians,  he  devoted  himself  most  assiduously  to  forming  anew 
and  improving  the  Syrian  Philoxenian  translation  of  the  New  Test 
ament.  In  carrying  oat  this  work  he  corrected,  as  accurately  as 
possible,  the  Philoxenian  version  upon  the  authority  of  the  best 
Greek  manuscripts,  and  restored  it  to  the  fidelity  of  the  original 
Greek.  This  copy  he  wrote  out  with  great  care,  and  again  revised 
it  and  gave  it  to  the  public,1  A.D.  616.  Bernstein2  thinks  that  he 
has  found  in  Codex  Angelicus,  at  Rome,  the  original  Philoxenian 
version  that  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  revision  of  Thomas  of 
Charkel.  Mangold,  however,  thinks  that  in  this  Bernstein  is  mis 
taken.  This  version  contains  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
except  the  Apocalypse. 

This  so-called  Philoxenian  translation  is  extremely  literal,  and  its 
author  has  often  sacrificed  the  Syriac  idiom  to  a  rigid  adherence  to 
the  Greek  text.  But  on  this  very  ground  it  is  a  valuable  testimony 
to  the  state  of  the  Greek  text  A.D.  500-600. 

The  four  gospels  of  this  version,  accompanied  by  a  Latin  transla 
tion,  were  published  in  two  volumes  by  Professor  White,  at  Oxford  in 
1778,  the  Catholic  Epistles  in  one  volume  in  1799,  the  Acts  and  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  in  one  volume  in  1803.  The  last  two  volumes  also 
contain  a  Latin  translation  of  the  text.  G.  H.  Bernstein  published, 
at  Leipsic,  in  1853.  a  beautiful  edition  of  the  Gospel  of  John  in  the 
version  of  Thomas  of  Charkel,  based  on  White's  edition,  corrected 
by  two  old  manuscripts,  the  Florentine  and  the  Vatican.  The  text 
is  printed  with  vowels,  and  the  points  kushoi  and  rucoch  from  a  Vati 
can  manuscript. 

THE    JERUSALEM    SYRIAC. 

This  is  a  partial  lectionary  of  the  gospels  found  in  the  Vatican 
Library,  which  Adler  discovered,  and  of  which  he  published  speci 
mens.  It  is  written  in  the  Aramaean  dialect,  similar  to  that  of  the 
Talmud  of  Jerusalem.  The  manuscript — the  only  extant  one  of 
the  version — according  to  the  superscription,  was  written  in  a  con 
vent  at  Antioch  in  1030.  It  was  made  from  the  Greek  in  the  fifth 
or  sixth  century,  though  possibly  later. 

THE  LATIN  VERSIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
THE    ITALA. 

As  in  the  apostolic  age,  the  Latin  language  was  the  vernacular  of 
Italy,  and  was  used  extensively  in  Northern  Africa,  as  appears  from 

1  De  Charklen,  N.  T.  Trans.  Syriaca,  p.  9. 

2  Das  Heil.  Evang.  des  Johan  Syrisch,  pp.  25-29. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  473 

the  fact  that  Tertullian  at  Carthage  (A.D.  193-220)  and  Cyprian  in 
the  same  city  (about  A.D.  250)  both  wrote  in  that  language,  and  as 
Christianity  extensively  l  prevailed  in  that  region  as  early  as  the  sec 
ond  century,  it  is  very  probable  that  a  version  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  would  be  made  into  Latin  as  early  as  A.D.  150.  Accordingly, 
we  find  Tertullian  in  his  treatise  on  "  Monogamy,"  written  about 
A.D.  210  or  215,  referring  to  a  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament 
as  being  already  in  use :  "  As  it  has  gone  into  use  either  by  an  in 
genious  or  plain  mistranslation  of  two  syllables,  si  dormierit  vir 
(jus,  we  must  know  that  it  is  clearly  not  thus  in  the  original  Greek."  ! 
Tertullian  objects  to  referring  it  to  the  future. 

In  the  time  of  Augustine  (about  A.D.  400)  this  early  Latin  trans 
lation  had  already  exhibited  so  many  variations  in  its  manuscripts 
as  to  present  the  appearance  of  different  versions,  of  which  fact 
Augustine  complains.*  Among  the  Latin  texts  of  the  time,  he  de 
clares  his  preference  for  the  Itala,  as  adhering  more  closely  to  the 
words  of  the  original,  and  as  expressing  the  sense  clearly.4 

The  extant  Latin  manuscripts  belonging  to  the  times  preceding 
Jerome's  revision  of  the  text,  or,  indeed,  to  a  later  period,  unaffected 
by  that  version,  exhibit  great  diversity. 

"  When,  however,  the  several  codices,"  says  Scrivener,  "  of  the 
version  or  versions  antecedent  to  Jerome's  version  came  to  be  stud 
ied  by  Sabatier  and  Blanchini,  and  through  their  labors  to  be  placed 
within  the  reach  of  all  scholars,  it  was  soon  perceived  that  with 
many  points  of  difference  between  them,  there  were  evident  traces 
of  a  common  source  from  which  all  originally  sprung."  ' 

Augustine  evidently  uses  "  Itala  "  to  qualify  "  interpretatio,"  "  the 
Italian  interpretation,"  and  which  appears  to  have  been  both  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  But  here  the  question  arises,  Was  this 
Itala  the  original  Latin  version  made  in  the  second  century,  or  was 
it  a  recei  sion  of  that  translation  ?  It  seems  at  present  to  be  the 
prevailing  opinion  of  biblical  critics  that  the  oldest  Latin  version  of 
the  New  Testament  was  executed  in  Northern  Africa  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  The  character  of  this  version  is  to 


'About  A.D.  200  a  synod  was  held  under  Agrippinus,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  which 
consisted  of  seventy  African  and  Numidian  Bishops. 

"  Sciamus  plane  non  sic  esse  in  Graeco  authentico,  quomodo  in  usum  exiit  per 
duarum  syllabarum  aut  callidam  aut  simplicem  eversionem  :  si  dormierit  vir  ejus, 
etc.,  cap.  XL  The  Greek  is  KOLprjGr),  if  he  has  slept,  (died,)  I  Cor.  vii,  39. 

'Doct.  Christ.  Lib.  II.,  cap.  XI-XV. 

*In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus,  Itala  caeteris  pneferatur  nam  est  verborum 
tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  sentential.  Ibid. 

•Intro,  to  Crit.  N.  Test.,  p.  339,  3d  ed.,  1883, 


474  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

be  determined  from  the  writings  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  at  Car 
thage,  who  used  it. 

In  proof  of  its  African  origin,  Scrivener  remarks  that,  "  On  the 
ground  of  internal  evidence,  Wiseman  has  made  out  a  case,  which 
all  who  have  followed  him,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Davidson,  Tre- 
gelles,  accept  as  irresistible;  indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to  draw  any  other 
conclusion  from  his  elaborate  comparison  of  the  words,  the  phrases 
and  grammatical  constructions  of  the  Latin  version  of  Holy  Scrip 
ture,  with  the  parallel  instances  by  which  they  can  be  illustrated 
from  African  writers,  and  from  them  only."1 

Ronsch,  who  has  paid  especial  attention  to  the  subjecl.  declares 
it  as  certain,  "That  the  peculiarities  of  language  of  the  numerous 
extant  fragments  of  the  Itala  belong  to  the  African  dircion,  and 
must  have  sprung  up  upon  the  soil  of  (proconsular)  Africa."5  He 
supposes  that  the  name  Itala  was  given  to  this  old  Latin  ^ersion  be- 
cause  it  was  not  made  in  the  elegant  language  of  the  P.rr.an  capi 
tal,  but  in  the  Italian  provincial  language,  the  common  Lp.m.  He, 
nevertheless,  thinks  the  conjecture  of  Wordsworth,  thai  che  Itala 
appears  to  have  been  an  Italian  recension  of  the  old  Afno'.r  version, 
to  be  worthy  of  regard.1 

The  Codex  Brixianus  of  the  sixth  century  is  rega/iVJ  by  Tre- 
gelles  as  "  specially  the  Italian  recension  of  the  old  (or  African) 
Latin."  In  all  probability  Augustine  designates  by  t'ala  a  Latin 
recension  of  the  old  version  made  in  Italy.  Bleek  Tega<ds  it  as 
so-called  because  it  was  in  use  in  Upper  Italy  when  *.t  rece^/rd  its 
form.4 

Among  the  most  important  manuscripts  of  the  olfl  V^.tir  /f  »sion 
of  the  New  Testament  may  be  named  : 

Codex  Vercellensis,  edited  by  Irici,  and  also  by  I  'uchiiii.  A?. 
cording  to  Tischendorf  it  belongs  to  century  IV.  (a) 

Codex   Veronensis,   edited  by  Bianchini.       It  b  fongs   to    cen 
tury  V.  (b). 

Codex  Colbertinus,  edited  by  Sabatier.  (c). 

Codex  Cantabrigiensis,  belonging  to  the  sixt.l  century,  (d). 
This  is  called  by  Tregelles,  Codex  Bezae. 

Codex  Palatinus,  edited  by  Tischendorf.  It  be'ongs  to  century 
V.  (,). 

Codex  Brixianus,  a  revised  Latin  text,  edited  r>y  Bianchini.  It 
belongs  to  century  VI.  (/). 

*Introd.  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Test.,  p.  341. 
'Quoted  by  Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung,  p.  798-799. 
'  In  Hilgenfeld,  ibid. 
4  Einleitung,  A.  T.,  p.  795. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  475 

Codices,  formerly  Corbeienses,  now  Petropolitc.ni  (f*  et  ^r.*)l 
edited  by  Bianchini  and  Sabatier;  mixed  in  text. 

Codex  Claromontanus,  now  Vaticanus,  of  century  V,  edited  by 
Mai;  a  mixed  text.  (ti). 

Codex  Vindobonensis,  of  century  V  or  VI,  parts  of  Mark  and 
Luke.  (i). 

Codex  Bobbiensis,  now  Taurinensis,  of  century  V.  (k). 

JEROME'S  REVISION. 

In  the  last  part  of  the  fourth  century  the  distinguished  scholar 
Jerome  made  a  revision  of  the  Latin  translation  of  the  New  Testa 
ment.  In  the  year  392,  in  speaking  of  his  work,  he  says :  "  I 
brought  the  New  Testament  into  accord  with  the  original  Greek."  ' 
In  his  dedication  to  Damasus,  prefixed  to  the  gospels,  Jerome 
says :  "  The  four  gospels  have  been  revised  by  collating  old  Greek 
manuscripts.  That  they  might  not  depart  much  from  the  usage  of 
the  Latin  reading,  we  so  modified  them  with  our  pen  that  we  cor 
rected  only  those  passages  which  seemed  to  change  the  sense,  and 
allowed  the  rest  to  remain  as  they  were."  s  Jerome's  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  revision  of  the  New  are  the  basis  of  the 
Vulgate.  The  most  valuable  manuscript  of  his  edition  is  the  Codex 
Amiatinus,  written  about  A.D.  541.  It  has  been  published  by  Tis- 
chendorf.  Tregelles  has  made  it  the  basis  of  his  Latin  version 
printed  in  parallel  columns  with  his  Greek  Text. 

THE    COPTIC    VERSIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  Coptic  language,  which  sprang  from  the  language  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians,  was  used  by  the  Christians  in  Egypt,  from  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century  after  Christ  until  the  seventh,  in 
speaking  and  writing,  and  especially  in  translating  the  Holy  Scrip 
tures.  The  names  Coptus^  Copti,  and  Coptitae,  as  well  as  the  Aigup- 
tos  of  the  Greeks,  take  their  origin  without  doubt  from  the  most 
ancient  name  of  this  country,  very  often  found  on  the  hieroglyphic 
monuments,  Kahi-Ptah  (the  land  of  the  God  Ptah).3  Of  the  Coptic 
language  there  are  three  dialects:  The  Theban  (or  Sahidic),  of 
Upper  Egypt,  the  Memphitic,  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  the  Bashmuric,* 
which  seems  to  have  been  used  in  some  part  of  the  Delta. 

1  Novum  Testamentum  Graecae  fidei  reddidi.     De  viris  Illus..  cap.  135. 

*  Quatuor   Evangelia   Codicum    Graecorum  emendata   collatione,    sed   veterum 
Quse  ne  multum  a  lectionis  Latinae  consuetudine  discreparent,  ita  calamo  temperavi- 
mus  ut  his  tantum,  quae  sensum  videbantur  mutare,  correctis,  reliqua  manere  pater- 
emur  ut  fuerant 

*  Uhlemann,  Linguae  Copticae  Grammatical 

4Uhlemann  derives  the  name  from  Bash — Mareia  (Mdpeia,  Mapewrif,  the  name 
of  lakes  near  Alexandria). 


476  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUm 

Christianity  was  introduced  into  Egypt  as  early  is  the  last  part 
of  the  first  century.  According  to  an  ancient  tradition,  the  evan 
gelist  Mark  founded  the  Church  in  Alexandria,  which  in  the  second 
century  was  in  a  most  flourishing  condition.  From  this  center 
Christianity  must  have  soon  spread  to  the  adjoining  regions  of 
Egypt.  "But  although  the  Gospel,"  says  Neander,  "  early  found 
its  way  into  the  parts  of  Lower  Egypt  inhabited  by  Graecian  and 
Jewish  colonies,  yet  it  would  not  be  so  easy  for  it  to  penetrate 
thence  into  Middle,  and  particularly  into  Upper  Egypt ;  for  h 
those  parts  the  foreign  Coptic  language,  the  dominion  of  the  priests, 
and  the  old  Egyptian  superstition  stood  in  the  way.  Yet  a  perse- 
•cution  of  the  Christians  in  Thebais  under  Septimius  Severus  (A  D. 
193-211)  proves  that  Christianity  had  already  made  progress  in 
Upper  Egypt  as  early  as  the  last  times  of  the  second  century."1 

It  is  not  in  the  least  degree  probable  that  the  Egyptian  Christians 
would  long  remain  without  versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the 
New  Testament  especially,  in  their  vernacular  dialects.  Hence  it 
is  highly  probable  that  their  principal  versions,  the  Memphitic  and 
Sahidic,  were  made  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  or  in  the  be 
ginning  of  the  third. 

That  the  Christians  of  Middle  Egypt  had  a  version  of  the  New 
Testament  in  Coptic  in  the  second  half  of  the  third  century  appears 
from  the  life  of  St.  Anthony.  This  hermit,  born  near  Heracleia,  in 
Middle  Egypt,  A.D.  251,  "could  not  bear  to  learn  letters,"  as 
Athanasius  informs  us,  but  gave  attention  when  a  boy  to  the  read 
ing  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  churches,  and  at  the  age  of  eighteen  or 
tw(  nty  he  was  so  affected  at  hearing  read  in  the  church  Christ's 
ad'dce  to  the  rich  young  man  (Matt,  xix,  21)  that  he  immediately 
leff  the  church  and  disposed  of  all  his  real  and  personal  estate  for 
the  benefit  of  others.  That  this  reading  of  the  Scriptures  was  in 
Coptic  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  St.  Anthony  made  an  address  to 
the  monks  in  that  language,  but  spoke  to  the  Greek  philosophers 
thn/ugh  an  interpreter.  St.  Anthony's  dialect  was  probably  Mem 
phitic. 

THE    MEMPHITIC    VERSION. 

This  version  takes  its  name  from  Memphis,  the  chief  city  of  the 
region  in  which  the  most  polished  dialect  of  the  Coptic  (or  Egyp 
tian)  was  used.  In  1716  David  Wilkins,  a  Prussian,  published,  at 
Oxford,  the  Coptic  New  Testament  in  the  Memphitic  dialect  from 
the  Bodleian  manuscripts,  compared  with  others  at  Paris  and  the 
Vatican,  accompanied  with  a  Latin  translation.  This  Latin  version, 

J  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  i,  p.  83. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  477 

though  highly  creditable  to  Wilkins,  as  a  pioneer  in  this  department 
has  not  been  highly  commended  by  the  best  Coptic  scholars. 

In  1846-47  M.  G.  Schwartze,  Professor  of  Coptic  in  the  University 
of  Berlin,  published  at  Leipsic  the  four  gospels  of  the  Memphitic 
version,  with  the  title  of"  QUARTUOR  EVANGELIA  IN  DIA- 
LECTO  LINGUAE  COPTICS  MEMPHITICA  PERSCRIPTA 
AD  CODD.  MS.  COPTICORUM  IN  REGIA  BIBLIOTHECA 
BEROLINENSI  ADSERVATORUM  NEC  NON  *LIBRI  A 
WILKINSIO  EMISSI  FIDEM,"  etc.,  in  2  vols.  4to.,  with  beauti 
ful  type.  The  text  is  based  on  six  codices,  transcribed  by  Petraeus 
in  1622,  from  copies  of  the  tenth  century  and  later.  Professor 
Schwartze  places  below  the  text  a  collation  of  his  Memphitic  read 
ings  from  manuscripts  and  from  Wilkins  along  with  the  readings  of 
the  critical  Greek  texts  of  Tischendorf  (1841)  and  Lachman  (1842). 
He  also  introduces  readings  from  the  Sahidic  (or  Theban)  version. 
Of  the  Sahidic  readings  he  generally  gives  a  Latin  translation,  but 
he  translates  only  portions  of  the  Memphitic  text.  For  critical  pur 
poses  this  edition  of  Schwartze  is  the  most  valuable  work  yet  pub 
lished  on  the  Egyptian  versions  of  the  four  Gospels.  After 
Schwartze's  death  Paulns  Boetticher  published  at  Halle,  in  1852, 
the  Acts  of  the  Apost!es  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul  in  the  Memphitic 
dialect.  The  text  is  based  on  the  authority  of  four  codices.  No 
translation  or  commentary  accompanies  the  text,  and  the  editor 
satisfies  himself  with  noting  at  the  foot  of  the  page  the  variations  of 
his  manuscripts.1  The  Memphitic  version  contains  a  large  number 
of  Greek  words.  It  is  a  faithful  translation  of  the  original  Greek. 

THE    THEBAIC    (OR    SAHIDIC)    VERSION. 

This  version  is  named  after  Thebes,  the  chief  city  of  the  region 
in  which  it  was  used.  It  is  of  about  the  same  age  as  the  Mem 
phitic  (about  A.  D.  200),  and,  like  that  version,  it  contains  numer 
ous  Greek  words,  which  we  would  not  have  expected  in  an  Upper 
Egypt  version. 

Of  this  version  of  the  New  Testament  only  fragments  remain,  of 
which  the  published  portions  are  found  almost  exclusively  in  the 
following  works  : 

Appendix  ad  Editionem  Novi  Testamenti  Grseci  e  codice  MS. 
Alexandrine  a  Carolo  Godofredo  Woide  descripti,  in  qua  contin- 
entur  fragmenta  Novi  Testamenti  Juxta  interpretationem  dialecti 
superioris  ^Egypti,  quae  Thebaidica  vel  sahidica  appellatur,  e  codd. 
Oxoniensibus  maxima  ex  parte  desumpta  cum  Dissertatione  de 

1  Of  Boetticher's  edition  we  have  been  able  to  obtain  only  the  Acts  of  Ui# 
Apostles. 


478  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

Versione  Bibb.  ^Egyptica  quibus  subjicitur  codicis  Vatican!  Colla- 
tio.     Oxonii,  1799.     Fol. 

Fr.  Munter.  Commentatio  de  indole  versionis  Sahidicse  Novi 
Testament!.  Accedunt  Fragmenta  Epistolarum  Pauli  ad  Timc- 
theum  in  membranis  Sahidicis  musei  Borgiani  Velitris,  Havniae, 
1784. 

Mingarellt,  ^Egyptiorum  codicum  Reliquiae  Venetiis  in  Biblio- 
theca  Nanjana  asservatae.  Fasc.  I,  et  II,  Bononiae,  1785. 

Georgi.  Fragmentum  Evangelii  St.  Johannis  Graeco-Copto-The- 
baicum  saeculi  IV.,  etc.  Romae,  1789.  This  fragment  contains 
portions  of  John  vi,  vii,  viii,  in  the  Greek  and  Thebaic  in  parallel 
columns.  The  section  containing  the  account  of  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery  (vii,  53-viii,  n)  is  wanting  both  in  the  Greek  and  The 
baic  of  this  old  fragment1  belonging  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  century 
as  viii,  12  joins  on  to  vii,  52. 

BASHMURIC    VERSION. 

This  version  is  based  on  the  Thebaic,  and  appears  to  have  been 
made  about  A.D.  300.  It  is  of  but  little  importance.  Only  small 
fragments  of  this  version  are  extant.  They  were  published  by  En- 
gelbreth  :  Fragmenta  Basmurico-Coptica  Veteris  et  Novi  Testa- 
menti,  Havniae,  1811. 

THE    jETHIOPIC    VERSION. 

Christianity  was  introduced  into  ^Ethiopia  (or  Abyssinia)  in  the 
first  half  of  the  fourth  century,  by  Frumentius,  who  became  Bishop 
of  Auxuma8  (Axum).  It  is  therefore  very  probable  that  the  trans 
lation  of  the  Bible,  at  least  that  of  the  New  Testament,  was  made 
soon  after  this  period  into  the  vernacular  of  the  country,  the  Geez, 
or  ^Ethiopic,  language.  Chrysostom,  about  A.D.  400,  speaks  of 
the  ^Ethiopians  as  possessing  a  translation  of  the  Gospel  of  John,' 
which  naturally  implies  that  they  had  a  translation  of  other  sacred 
Scripture.  This  translation  is  not  a  valuable  one.  "  In  fact,"  says  . 
Scrivener,  "  the  version  is  so  tautological,  confused,  and  unequal  in 
style  (that  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  in  particular  often  degenerating 
into  a  paraphrase),  that  some  have  thought  our  present  text  to  be  a 
compound  of  two  several  translations,  and  even  Tregelles  supposes 
that  '  there  was  originally  one  version  of  the  Gospels,  afterward 

1  This  fragment  lies  before  me. 

'Neander's  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  ii,  pp.  119,  I2O. 

'The  Syrians,  Egyptians,  Indians,  Persians,  ^Ethiopians,  and  countless  othei 
nations  have  translated   into  their  tongue  the  doctrines  introduced   by  this  on« 
John).— Horn,  in  'Joan. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  479 

compared  with  Greek  manuscripts  of  a  different  class;  and  the 
manuscripts  in  general  bearing  proofs  of  containing  a  text  modified 
by  such  comparison ;  while  others  contain  throughout  conflate. 
readings.'  "' 

The  New  Testament  in  this  version  (with  the  exception  of  the 
thirteen  epistles  of  Paul)  was  first  published  at  Rome  by  native 
editors  in  1548,  the  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul  in  the  following  year. 
•'  In  Walton's  Polyglot  the  New  Testament  was  reprinted  with 
many  faults,  and  an  unusually  bad  Latin  translation  by  Dudley  Lof- 
tus,  from  which  Mill  and  his  successors  derived  their  various  read 
ings.  C.  A.  Bode  published  a  new  or  revised  version  of  the  ^Ethi- 
opic  New  Testament  given  in  the  Polyglot  (Brunswick,  1753). 
.  .  .  Lastly,  in  1826-30  in  London,  Th.  Pell  Platt,  A.M.,  edited  for 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  *  Nov.  Testament  .  .  .  ^Ethi- 
opice,  ad  codicum  manuscriptorum  fidem.'" 

THE    GOTHIC    VERSION. 

In  the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era  the  Goths,  belonging  to 
the  Germanic  family,  invaded  the  Roman  Empire.  One  part  of 
them  settled  in  Moesia — a  region  along  the  Danube,  now  embraced 
in  Servia  and  Bulgaria — and  obtained  the  name  of  Moeso-Goths. 
During  some  of  their  incursions  they  captured  many  Christians,  and 
among  them  some  persons  of  the  clerical  order.  These  captured 
Christians  remained  among  them  and  laboured  as  zealous  mission 
aries.  A  Gothic  bishop  is  mentioned  as  being  present  at  the  Coun 
cil  of  Nicsea,  A.  D.  325.  Ulphilas,  who  belonged  to  a  Cappado- 
cian  family,  was  consecrated  bishop  of  the  Goths  at  Constantinople 
in  A.D.  348,  and  became  their  apostle.  "When  the  Christian 
Goths  were  oppressed  by  a  persecution,  he  led  a  great  multitude  of 
them  into  the  habitation  about  Nicopolis  in  Moesia,  which  Constan- 
tius  had  assigned  them  (355),  where,  after  inventing  the  Gothic 
alphabet,  he  translated  the  Bible  into  Gothic"  (Gieseler).  Philos- 
torgius,  about  A.D.  425,  says  that  Ulphilas  "  translated  into  their 
(the  Goths)  language  all  the  Scriptures  except  the  Books  of  Kings  " 
(Samuel  and  Kings). 

The  Gothic  language  belongs  to  the  Germanic  family  of  languages, 
and  Bopp  remarks  :  "  I  believe  I  am  reading  Sanscrit  when  I  read  the 
venerable  Ulphilas  ;  his  language  holds,  so  to  speak,  the  middle 
ground  between  Sanscrit  and  German." ' 

1  Introd.  to  the  Text.  Critic,  of  New  Test,  pp.  409,  410,  3d  ed.,  1883. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  410. 

3  Introduction  to  the  Gothic  Language  in  J.  P.  Migne's  edition  of  Ulphilas's 
Translation. 


480  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

The  Gothic  language  flourished  but  for  a  short  time.  In  Moesia 
it  was  blotted  out  by  the  torrent  of  new  people  that  poured  in  upon 
the  regions  of  the  Danube ;  and  in  the  western  regions  of  Europe 
it  disappeared  under  the  influence  of  the  Latin. 

The  Gothic  version  was  made  from  the  original  Greek  text,  "the 
authority  of  which  nearly  all  agree  that  Ulphilas  most  scrupulously 
follows,  rendering  it  word  for  word."1  It  is,  accordingly,  a  valuable 
witness  to  the  condition  of  the  Greek  text  in  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century.  The  version,  however,  suffered  some  corruptions 
from  Latin  sources  during  the  occupancy  of  Italy  by  the  Goths  in 
the  fifth  century.  Of  the  manuscripts  containing  fragments  of  this 
version,  the  most  important  is  the  Codex  Argenteus,  written  on  pur 
ple  vellum,  in  letters  of  gold  and  silver,  near  the  end  of  the  fifth,  or 
beginning  of  the  sixth,  century  in  Italy,  when  the  Goths  dwelt  there. 
It  is  now  in  the  University  of  Upsal.  It  contains  fragments  of  the 
four  Gospels  in  the  order,  Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark. 

The  Codex  Carolinus,  rescript,  was  written  about  A.D.  500.  It 
contains  a  part  of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

The  Ambrosian  Codices,  five  in  number,  are  in  Milan.  They  con 
tain  fragments  of  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul  (not  Hebrews).  They 
also  belong  to  about  A.D.  500. 

The  best  and  most  complete  edition  of  the  Gothic  version  is  that 
of  H.  C.  De  Gabelentz  and  J.  Loebe:  Ulfilae  Vet.  et  Nov.  Testamenti 
versionis  Gothic ae  Fragmenta  super sunt,  Leipsic,  1843. 

In  J.  P.  Migne's  edition  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  vol.  xviii,  this 
edition  of  Gabelentz  and  Loebe  is  found  accompanied  with  a  Latin 
translation,  Prolegomena,  Gothic  Grammar,  and  Glossary.3  It  con 
tains  about  one  fourth  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  nearly  all  Mark's, 
about  three  fourths  of  Luke's,  and  two  thirds  of  John's,  parts  of  all 
of  the  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  amounting  to  about  two  thirds  of 
their  contents,  but  no  part  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  the  seven  Cath'olic  Epistles,  or  the  Apocalypse. 

THE    ARMENIAN    VERSION. 

Christianity  was  introduced  into  Armenia  as  early  as  the  second 
century.  In  the  time  of  Diocletian,  King  Tiridates  was  won  over 
to  the  Christian  cause.  "  The  old  religion,"  says  Neander,  "  not 
withstanding  this  event,  still  continued  to  maintain  itself  in  many 
of  the  Armenian  provinces.  In  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
Miesrob,  who  had  once  been  the  royal  secretary,  having  devoted 

1  Gabelentz  and  Loebe's  edition,  Prolegomena. 

1  This  edition  now  lies  before  me  from  the  Dickinson  College  Library. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  481 

himself  wholly  to  the  service  of  religion,  disseminated  Christianity 
still  more  widely  in  countries  to  which  it  had  not  penetrated,  by 
taking  up  his  abode  in  those  regions  as  a  hermit.  Up  to  this  time 
the  Syrian  version  of  the  Bible,  the  authority  of  which  was  recog 
nized  in  the  Persian  Church,  had  been  used  in  Armenia;  and  hence 
an  interpreter  was  always  needed  to  translate  into  the  vernacular 
tongue  the  portions  of  Scripture  read  at  the  public  worship.  Mies- 
rob  gave  his  people  an  alphabet,  and  translated  the  Bible  into  their 
language."1 

The  version  was  accordingly  made  in  the  first  part  of  the  fifth 
century.  In  the  execution  of  the  version  from  the  original  Greek, 
Miesrob  was  assisted  by  Moses  Chorenensis  and  Joseph  and  Eznak, 
who  brought  Greek  manuscripts  from  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
A.D.  431. 

The  best  edition  of  this  version  is  that  of  Zohrab,  published  in 
1789,  on  the  basis  of  a  Cilician  Codex,  compared  with  twenty  others 
of  the  New  Testament.  His  Biblia  was  published  at  Venice  in 
1805.  Zohrab  does  not  acknowledge  any  systematic  corruption  of 
the  Armenian  from  the  Latin  Bible,  and  remarks  that  only  one  of  his 
eighteen  copies  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John  contains  chap,  v,  ver.  7.' 
Zohrab's  edition  of  1805  was  used  by  Tregelles,  through  the  assist 
ance  of  Dr.  Charles  Rieu.8 

Other  versions  of  the  New  Testament  were  made  at  later  periods, 
but  they  are  of  but  little  value  as  witnesses  to  the  ancient  text  of 
che  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

EDITIONS    OF    THE    GREEK    TESTAMENT. 

A  S  the  originals  of  the  New  Testament  books  must  have  been 
*"**  often  copied,  it  is  highly  probable  that  in  some  instances  the 
copies  taken  were  not  exact,  and  that  slight  errors  crept  into  them. 
These  copies  in  turn  were  at  different  times  copied,  and  if  faithfully 
executed,  must  have  perpetuated  these  errors.  But  as  some  slight 
mistakes  were  likely  made  in  these  second  copies,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  in  less  than  fifty  years  after  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  written,  various  readings  must  in  all  probability  have  arisen. 

1  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  ii,  pp.  113,  114. 
1  Scrivener,  p.  408,  3d  ed. 

'  Tregelles'  Introductory  Note  to  his  Crit.  Ed.  New  Testament. 
VOL.  L— 31 


482  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

The  number  of  these   different  readings  were  naturally  increased 
with  the  number  of  the  copies  and  with  the  lapse  of  time. 

In  some  instances,  a  word  or  sentence  written  on  the  margin  of  a 
manuscript,  as  a  suggestion  or  correction,  would  likely  be  incorpo 
rated  into  the  text  by  a  transcriber.  Some  transcribers  would  think 
that  certain  words  were  improperly  spelt,  and  in  attempting  to  cor 
rect  them,  in  some  cases,  they  themselves  committed  errors.  This 
was  the  natural  course  of  things,  and  could  have  been  prevented 
only  by  a  perpetual  miracle,  for  which  there  was  no  necessity.  The 
only  instances  in  which  no  variety  of  readings  exists  in  ancient 
writings  are  those  in  which  but  a  single  copy  exists,  and  the  text 
from  this  very  fact  is  made  more  or  less  uncertain. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  followers  of  Mohammed  espe 
cially  venerated  the  Koran,  and  yet  different  readings  in  it  soon 
presented  themselves.  "  Already  in  the  twelfth  year  of  the  Hegira," 
says  Tischendorf,  "  when  Abu  Bekr  had  the  different  elements  of 
the  Koran  collected,  so  many  different  readings  were  found,  that  he 
divided  them  into  five  classes.  The  consequence  was  that  disputes 
very  soon  broke  out  among  the  Arabic  scholars  respecting  the  gen 
uine  text  of  their  prophet.  How  was  the  matter  decided  ?  Twenty 
years  later  the  Calif  had  a  standard  copy  established,  and  all  diverg 
ent  copies  destroyed.  This  conduct  was  at  least  worthy  of  the 
sword  to  which  Mohammedanism  owed  its  victories."  ' 

But  what  strong  testimonies  we  have  to  the  integrity  of  the  New 
Testament !  Versions  made  from  the  original  Greek  in  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  centuries  in  widely  distant  lands,  and  which  are 
still  in  existence.  Manuscripts  going  back  to  the  fourth,  fifth,  and 
sixth  centuries;  the  extant  works  of  Christian  writers  who,  in  all 
parts  of  the  Roman  Empire,  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
made  the  most  extensive  use  of  the  New  Testament,  and  give  us 
numerous  quotations.  All  these  witnesses  testify  to  the  same  great 
truths,  and  their  divergences  from  each  other  are  generally  of  small 
moment ;  and  from  the  comparison  and  combination  of  the  whole 
testimony  we  can,  in  almost  every  instance,  detect  the  specific  errors 
of  each  witness,  and  fix  with  a  wondeiful  degree  of  exactness  the 
contents  of  the  original  documents  for  which  they  are  vouchers. 
For  the  integrity  of  what  writing  of  tne  Augustine  age  have  we  so 
many  witnesses  ? 

That  great  scholar  and  critic,  Richard  Bentley,  thus  gives  his 
testimony  upon  the  essential  agreement  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  of 

1  Haben  Wir  den  achten  Schriftext  der  Evangelisten  und  Apostel  ?      Leipzig, 
P-  13- 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  433 

the  New  Testament :  "  The  real  text  of  the  sacred  writers  does  not 
now  (since  the  originals  have  been  so  long  lost)  lie  in  any  manu 
script  or  edition,  but  is  dispersed  in  them  all.  'Tis  competently  ex 
act,  indeed,  in  the  worst  manuscript  now  extant ;  nor  is  one  article 
of  faith  or  moral  precept  either  perverted  or  lost  in  them,  choose  as 
awkwardly  as  you  will,  choose  the  worst  by  design  out  of  the  whole 
lump  of  writings."  *  Bentley's  remarks,  made  more  than  one  hun 
dred  and  fifty  years  ago,  respecting  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the 
Neu  Testament,  are  true  now  with  our  enlarged  knowledge  of  them. 

The  Greek  New  Testament  was  first  printed  by  Cardinal  Ximenes 
in  his  Polyglot,  but  as  he  deferred  its  publication  until  the  whole 
of  his  Polyglot  should  be  finished,  the  Greek  Testament  published 
at  Basel,  in  February,  1516,  under  the  supervision  of  Erasmus,  an 
ticipated  it.  It  was  accompanied  with  a  Latin  translation.  In 
1519  he  published  a  second  edition,  and  a  third  in  1522,  in  which 
he  introduced  i  John  v,  7.  Soon  after  the  first  edition  appeared, 
the  Complutensian  Polyglot  was  published  by  Cardinal  Ximenes. 
The  fourth  edition  of  Erasmus  followed  in  1527,  and  his  fifth  and 
last  in  1535. 

"  Erasmus's  materials,"  says  Tregelles,  "  were  but  few  in  com 
parison  with  those  which  have  been  since  available  for  purposes  of 
criticism;  they  were  also  comparatively  modern."8 

In  the  years  1546  and  1549  Robert  Stephens  printed  at  Paris  two 
beautiful  small  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  in  1550  ap 
peared  his  folio  edition,  in  the  margin  of  which  were  given  various 
readings  from  manuscripts,  which  had  been  collated  by  his  son, 
Henry  Stephens.  The  editions  of  1546  and  1549  had  contained  a 
text  blended  from  the  Complutensian  and  Erasmian ;  in  the  folio 
Erasmus  was  almost  exclusively  followed.3  On  the  readings  in  this 
folio  edition  Tregelles  says:  "  This  was  the  first  collection  of  various 
readings  of  any  extent ;  and  it  was  at  least  suggestive  of  what  might 
be  done  by  means  of  manuscripts  in  emending  the  text  of  the  Greek 
Testament." 

Theodore  Beza  succeeded  Robert  Stephens  as  an  editor  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  He  published  five  editions  in  1565,  1576,  1582, 
1589,  and  1598.  He  mostly  followed  the  text  of  Stephens.4  Beza's 
text  was  during  his  life  in  very  general  use  among  Protestants ;  they 
seemed  to  feel  that  enough  had  been  done  to  establish  it,  and  they 
relied  on  it  as  giving  them  a  firm  basis.6 

1  Remarks  on  Free  Thinking  in  Scrivener,  p.  7. 

1  Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  New  Test.,  p.  28. 

'  Tregelles'  Account  of  the  Printed  Text,  p.  30. 

4  Tregelles,  p.  33.  '  Ibid. 


484  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

The  celebrated  printers  at  Leyden,  the  Elzevirs,  issued  their  first 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  in  1624.  "The  editor,  if  any," 
says  Tregelles,  "  is  wholly  unknown  ;  it  is  probable  that  the  printers 
took  the  third  edition  of  Robert  Stephens  as  their  basis,  introducing 
merely  a  few  changes,  which  they  considered  to  be  corrections,  and 
using  for  this  purpose  a  copy  of  one  of  Beza's  editions."  "  In  1633 
the  publishers  themselves  brought  out  their  own  second  edition, 
which  is  considered  their  best  ...  A  high  ground  is  assumed  as  to 
the  text  which  is  thus  presented.  The  reader  is  told,  'Thou  hast 
the  text  now  received  by  all,  in  which  we  give  nothing  altered  or  cor 
rupted  '  (Textum,  ergo  habes,  nunc  ab  Omnibus  receptum,  etc.).  From 
this  expression  in  the  preface  has  arisen  the  phrase,  '  Textus  Re- 
ceptus,'  as  applied  to  the  text  of  the  Greek  Testaments  in  common 
use,  on  the  supposition  that  they  were  accurate  reprints  of  the  Elze 
vir  editions.' " 

In  1707  John  Mill  published  an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
with  various  readings  from  manuscript  versions  and  fathers,  a  work 
upon  which  he  spent  thirty  years.  He  did  not  form  a  new  text,  but 
simply  used  the  third  edition  of  Stephens,  correcting  the  errata. 

Dr.  Edward  Wells  published  a  Greek  Testament,  with  an  English 
translation,  notes,  and  a  paraphrase  at  Oxford  in  separate  parts, 
from  1709  to  r7i9. 

The  celebrated  Richard  Bentley  made  elaborate  preparations  for 
issuing  a  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  in  1720  he 
"  issued  his  proposals  for  his  Greek  and  Latin  New  Testament, 
accompanied  by  the  last  chapter  of  the  Revelation,  as  a  specimen." 
This  contemplated  great  work  was  never  completed. 

John  Albert  Bengel  published  at  Tubingen,  in  1734,  his  edition  oi 
the  Greek  New  Testament.  The  critical  apparatus  was,  for  the 
most,  taken  from  Mill. 

John  J.  Wetstein  published  at  Amsterdam,  in  1751  and  1752,  an 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  in  two  vols.,  accompanied  by  Pro 
legomena,  in  which  he  pointed  out  the  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
fathers  by  whose  aid  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  may  be 
revised. 

J.  J.  Griesbach  issued  at  Halle,  in  1774-75,  his  edition  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  in  three  volumes.  He  afterward  combined 
tne  first  two  volumes — embracing  the  Gospels  and  Acts — into  one, 
for  convenience,  and  published  it  at  Halle  in  1777,  to  which  the 
edition  cf  the  Epistles  and  Apocalypse  of  1775  forms  the  second 
part. 

Tregelles  remarks  on  Griesbach :  "With  him,  in  fact,  texts  which 

1  Tregelles,  p.  35. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  485 

might  be  called  really  critical  begin;  so  that  if  any  one  wished  tc 
give  the  results  of  critical  inquiries,  as  applied  to  the  common  text, 
he  would  begin  with  that  formed  by  Griesbach." ! 

C.  F.  Matthaei  published  at  Riga,  in  twelve  volumes,  1782-88,  the 
New  Testament  in  Greek  and  Latin.  J.  M.  Scholz  published  an 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  at  Leipsic,  1830-1836,  in  two  vol 
umes,  in  the  preparation  of  which  he  made  extensive  travels  for  the 
collection  and  collation  of  manuscripts. 

In  1831  Carl  Lachmann  issued  at  Berlin  a  small  editipn  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  It  was  the  result  of  close  and  careful  study  for 
five  years.  He  sought  to  carry  out  the  idea  of  Bentley,  to  present 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  as  it  originally  stood  in  the  oldest 
witnesses.  Respecting  him,  Tregelles  affirms  :  "The  first  Greek 
Testament,  since  the  invention  of  printing,  edited  wholly  on  ancient 
authority,  irrespective  of  modern  traditions,  is  due  to  Charles  Lack 
matin."  ' 

A  larger  edition  of  Lachmann's  Greek  Testament  was  published, 
with  the  aid  of  P.  Buttmann,  in  two  volumes,  1842,  1850,  at  Berlin. 

We  now  come  to  the  most  distinguished  of  the  critical  editors 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  CONSTANTINE  TISCHENDORF. 
This  eminent  scholar  published  the  first  edition  of  his  Greek  Testa 
ment  at  Leipsic,  in  1841,  a  small  8vo.  He  gives  us  a  text  of  his 
own,  in  which,  however,  for  the  most  part,  he  adheres  to  the  text  of 
Lachmann.  Tischendorf  also  superintended  three  editions  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  were  published  at  Paris  in  1842.  In  1840, 
and  subsequently,  he  visited  the  Libraries  in  Paris,  England,  Hol 
land,  Switzerland,  and  Italy  to  collect  materials  for  his  critical  edi- 
ditions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 

In  1844  he  visited  the  monasteries  of  the  East  in  quest  of  manu 
scripts  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

In  1849  Tischendorf  published  at  Leipsic  his  second  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  in  which  he  gives  the  text,  as  he  supposes  it 
ought  to  stand,  the  result  of  the  labors  of  previous  collators  and  of 
his  own.  He  also  at  various  times  issued  other  editions. 

In  1859,  the  same  year  in  which  he  discovered  the  Codex  Sinaiti- 
cus,  he  published  what  he  calls  his  "  Seventh  larger  critical 
edition." 

In  1864  Tischendorf  began  his  eighth  and  last  large  critical  edi 
tion,  the  first  volume  of  which,  containing  the  four  Gospels,  was 
published  in  1869  at  Leipsic  ;  and  the  second,  containing  the  rest 

1  The  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  Testament,  p.  82. 
'Ibid,  p  113. 


488  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  appeared  in  the  same  city  in  1872 
As  Tischendorf  died  in  1874,  the  Prolegomena,1  which  were  to  form 
the  third  volume,  were  not  completed. 

Tischendorf  lays  down  the  following  principles  for  the  formation 
of  his  text,  which  Tregelles  quotes  with  approbation  :  "  The  text  is 
only  to  be  sought  from  ancient  evidence,  and  especially  from  Greek 
manuscripts,  but  without  neglecting  the  testimonies  of  versions  and 
fathers.  Thus  the  whole  conformation  of  the  text  should  proceed 
from  the  evidences  themselves,  and  not  from  what  is  called  the 
received  edition."  In  the  Introduction  to  his  eighth  larger  critical 
edition  Tischendorf  declares  his  adherence  to  the  idea  of  Richard 
Bentley,  which  was  followed  by  Lachmann,  to  establish  the  text  from 
the  few  oldest  manuscripts,  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  some  of  the 
oldest  versions,  especially  the  Latin,  and  by  the  testimonies  of  the  fa- 
theis  in  all  cases,  and  to  give  a  subordinate  authority  to  the  codices. 

The  eighth  critical  edition  of  Tischendorf  s  Greek  Testament  is 
furnished  with  extensive  critical  apparatus  in  the  form  of  readings 
from  the  oldest  Greek  manuscript  versions,  and  citations  from  the 
early  fathers,  upon  the  basis  of  which  he  rests  his  critical  text. 

This  edition  of  Tischendorfs  places  before  us  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  in  a  very  accurate  form,  such  as  it  was  known  to  the 
fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  must  present  to  us  a 
very  exact  copy  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  as  delivered 
by  its  different  authors. 

Tischendorf  also  rendered  great  services  to  the  Christian  world 
by  publishing  various  ancient  codices  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
by  thus  placing  the  grounds  of  the  authority  of  our  Greek  Testa 
ment  within  the  reach  of  all  scholars. 

In  the  same  rank  with  Tischendorf  as  a  critical  editor  stands  the 
Englishman  Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  inferior  to  him,  perhaps,  in 
learning,  but  not  in  critical  ability  and  acumen. 

This  distinguished  scholar  published,  in  1844,  a  Greek  text  of  the 
Book  of  Revelation  from  ancient  authorities,  with  an  English  trans 
lation,  and  announced  his  intention  of  editing  the  Greek  Testament 
with  various  readings.  In  executing  this  work  he  has  adopted  the 
following  plan : 

"  I.  To  give  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  authority 
of  the  ancient  witnesses,  manuscripts,  and  versions,  with  the  aid  of 
the  earliest  citations,  so  as  to  present,  as  far  as  possible,  the  text 
best  attested  in  the  earlier  centuries. 

"  II.  To  follow  certain  proofs,  when  obtainable,  which  carry  us 
as  near  as  possible  to  the  Apostolic  Age. 

1  Dr.  Gregory,  of  Leipzig,  is  preparing  for  publication  the  Prolegomena. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  48? 

"III.  So  to  give  the  various  readings  as  to  make  it  clear  what  is 
the  evidence  on  both  sides ;  and  always  to  give  the  whole  of  the 
testimony  of  the  ancient  manuscripts  (and  of  some  which  are  later  in 
date  but  old  in  text)  of  the  versions  as  far  as  the  seventh  century, 
and  the  citations  down  to  Eusebius  inclusive."1  In  carrying  out  this 
plan,  Tregelles  most  laboriously  collated  manuscripts,  examined 
ancient  versions,  and  studied  extensively  the  patristic  writings. 

The  first  part,  containing  Matthew  and  Mark,  was  published  in 
1857;  the  second  part,  containing  Luke  and  John,  appeared  in  1861; 
the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles  in  1865;  the  fourth  part,  embracing 
Romans,  First  and  Second  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philip- 
pians,  Colossians,  and  First  and  Second  Thessalonians,  appeared  in 
1869;  the  fifth  part,  containing  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  First 
and  Second  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  Epistle  to  Philt-mon,  were  pub 
lished  in  1870;  the  sixth  part,  containing  the  Apocalypse,  appeared 
in  1872. 

Parallel  with  the  Greek  text,  Tregelles  gives  the  Latin  version 
of  Jerome  from  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  written  about  A.D.  541. 

The  protracted  illness  and  the  death  of  Tregelles  prevented  him 
from  completing  his  work,  and  the  seventh  part,  containing  "  Prole 
gomena  and  addenda  and  corrigenda,"  was  compiled  and  edited  bv 
F.  J.  A.  Hort,  D.D.,  and  A.  W.  Streane,  A.M.,  and  published  in 
1879,  after  the  death  of  Tregelles.  The  whole  work  makes  a  quarto 
volume  of  1070  pages,  besides  Prolegomena  of  xxxii  pages,  and  is 
published  in  London  by  Samuel  Bagster  &  Sons.  In  every  respect 
this  edition  of  Tregelles  is  worthy  of  the  highest  praise.  It  is  to  be 
legretted,  however,  that  his  death  prevented  his  publishing  a  revised 
edition  of  the  whole  work.  Codex  Sinaiticus  is  not  used  until  near 
the  close  of  John's  Gospel. 

A  later  critical  text  of  the  Greek  of  the  highest  value  has  been 
prepared  by  Drs.  Westcott  and  Hort,  with  an  Introduction  by  Dr. 
Philip  Schaff.     Harper  &  Brothers,  New  York,  1881. 
1  Introductory  notice  to  his  critical  edition. 


488  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE    CANON    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

'"PHE  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  held  by  all 
^  bodies1  of  Christians,  with  the  exception  of  some  individuals, 
however,  are  fthe  following :  The  four  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
The  books  of  Luke,  and  John  ;  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  written  by 
the  New  Testa-  Luke;  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul — one  to  the  Romans, 
two  to  the  Corinthians;  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians, 
Philippians,  and  Colossians,  each  one;  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  to 
Timothy,  each  two;  one  to  Titus  and  one  to  Philemon,  and  an 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  the  General  Epistle  of  James,  two  General 
Epistles  of  Peter,  one  General  Epistle  and  two  small  Epistles  of  John, 
the  General  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation. 

The  foregoing  is  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  English  version. 
But  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  in  their  critical  editions  of  the  Greek, 
follow  another  order,  the  same  as  that  of  the  Vatican8  manuscript, 
of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  Alexandrian,  of  the  following  century. 
After  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  they  arrange 
the  other  books  thus:  The  Epistle  of  James,  two  Epistles  of  Peter, 
three  of  John,  one  of  Jude,  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,  the 
two  to  the  Corinthians,  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians, 
Philippians,  Colossians,  the  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  the  one  to  Titus,  that  to  Phil 
emon,  and  the  Revelation.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that 
our  present  canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  not  universally  re 
ceived,  in  all  its  parts,  in  the  first  three  centuries  after  the  apostolic 
age,  as  there  were  doubts  about  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Second  and  Third  of  John,  and  about 
the  authors  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  of  the  Revelation. 

The  books  that  compose  bur  canon  of  the  New  Testament  were 
Times  and  oo-  written»  m  a^  probability,  between  A.  D.  50  and  90.' 
onions  of  their  They  were  called  forth  on  various  occasions,  to  meet  the 
composition.  wants  of  the  jnfant  Church.  Some  were  written  origi 
nally  for  some  particular  society,  and  others  for  the  whole  Church. 

1  The  ancient  Syriac  version,  the  Peshito,  however,  wants  the  Second  Epistle  oi 
Peter,  that  of  Jude,  Second  and  Third  John,  and  the  Revelation. 

'  The  Vatican  MS.,  however,  does  not  extend  farther  than  Hebrews  ix,  14. 
*  It  is  probable  that  the  so-called  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  was  written  laic,.. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  489 

Luke  dedicates  his  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  Theuph- 
ilus,  though,  doubtless,  intending  them  for  general  circulation..  But 
even  the  writings  which  were  addressed  to  special  societies  would, 
soon  be  copied  and  circulated  throughout  the  Christian  world.  And 
St.  Paul  himself,  near  the  close  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  re 
quests,  "And  when  this  epistle  is  read  among  you,  cause  that  it  be 
read  also  in  the  Church  of  the  Laodiceans;  and  that  ye  likewise  read 
the  Epistle  from  Laodicea." 

Clement  of  Rome,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written  in  the 
larter  part  of  the  first  century,  refers  to  Paul's  first  Referencea  to 
epistle '  to  them,  and  from  the  way  he  speaks  of  matters  the  books  in 
mentioned  in  that  epistle  it  is  evident  he  had  a  copy  of  early  writers- 
it  before  him.  He  also  had  before  him  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the 
Romans,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,3  and  in  all  probability  the 
Gospels  of  Mat:hews  and  Luke.4 

In  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  written  most  probably  in  the  last  part 
of  the  first*  century,  there  is  a  passage  quoted,  found  in  Matt, 
xxii,  14,  with  the  remark,  as  it  is  written?  This  is  the  formula  with 
which  the  Jews  quoted  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  it  is  prob 
able  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  already  arranged  along  with 
other  sacred  books  in  use  in  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  written  soon  after  the 
martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  and  therefore  somewhere  between  A.  D.  107 
and  116,  contains  references  to  various  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
though  not  specified  by  name,  except  where  he  speaks  of  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  Besides  this  reference  we  find  the  exact 
language  used  in  Matt,  xxvi,  41  and  Mark  xiv,  38,  and  a  passage 
from  Acts  ii,  24.  He  introduces  a  passage  from  i  Corinthians  with 
the  remark,  "As  Paul  says."  We  also  find  a  reference  to  Paul's 
Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  the  First  of  Peter,  and  First  of  John.  Be- 
sides  the  passage  mentioned  as  being  found  in  Matthew  and  Mark, 
there  seems  to  be  an  evident  quotation  from  Matthew's  report  of  the 
sermon  on  the  mount.  From  this  it  will  appear  that  Polycarp  must 
have  had  a  collection  of  New  Testament  writings  consisting  of  at  least 
eight  books.  There  is  a  clear  reference  to  such  a  collection  where 
he  says,  "  I  trust  ye  are  well  exercised  in  the  holy  writings,  as  in 
these  Scriptures  it  is  said,  Be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not,  and,  Let  not  the 

'Sec.  47.  'Sec.  36  refers  to  Heb.  i,  3,  4;  sec.  17,  to  Heb.  iii,  2  and  xi. 

8  In  sec.  46,  to  Matt,  xviii,  6.          4  In  sec.  13  the  reference  is  to  Luke  vi,  36-38. 

*  Hilgenfcld  places  it  about  A.  D.  97. 

*  "  Many  arc  called,  few  are  chosen."     The  Greek  in  Matthew  and  Barnabas  is 
the  same. 


490  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath."  Here  he  quotes  Eph.  iv,  26  as  a 
part  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Justin  Martyr,  about  A.  D.  139,  in  his  first  Apology  for  the 
Justin  Martyr's  Christians,  states  that  they  were  accustomed  to  meet 
citations.  «  on  tiie  day  of  the  sun,  so  called,  when  The  Memoirs 

of  the  Apostles,  or  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  are  read  as  long  as 
time  allows."1  He  had  just  before  remarked,  "  For  the  apostles,  IP. 
the  memoirs  composed  by  them,  called  Gospels,  have  delivered  that 
Jesus,  having  taken  bread  and  given  thanks,  commanded  them,  say 
ing,  '  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,'  "  etc.  In  his  Dialogue  with 
Trypho  the  Jew,  written  soon  afterwards,  he  describes  the  Gospels 
more  accurately,  as  "written  by  the  apostles  and  their  companions"* 
In  his  first  Apology  he  gives  quotations  from  all  four  of  our  Gospels — 
mostly  from  Matthew  and  Luke.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  apos 
tolic  Epistles  had  been  already  collected,  but,  probably,  they  were 
not  read  as  regularly  as  the  Gospels  in  the  public  assemblies. 

About  A.  D.  140  Marcion,  a  noted  heretic,  made  a  collection  of 
sacred  Scriptures  for  his  own  use,  embracing  an  abridged  edition  of 
Luke's  Gospel,  and  ten  Epistles  of  Paul,  some  of  which  he  mutilated 
These  books  he  took  from  the  canon  in  use  in  the  Christian  Church. 
Epiphanius3  charges  him  with  arranging  the  Epistles  in  a  different 
order  from  that  in  which  they  stood  in  the  Christian  collection.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  it  appears  that  the  sacred 
books  formed  two  divisions,  The  Gospels  (rd  kvayyehina)  and  The 
Epistles  (rd  anoarohiKd).*  Tertullian  speaks  of  Gospels  (evangelid), 
and  Apostles  (apostoli)? 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  RESPECTING  THE 
CANON   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

n^HE  earliest  known  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
•*•  is  the  fragment  in  Latin,  commonly  called  the  Canon  of  Mura- 
tori,  from  its  discoverer,  a  distinguished  Italian  antiquarian,  who 
Canon  at  MU-  found  it  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  in  Milan,  and  pub- 
ratori.  lished  it  in  1740.  The  fragment  itself  contains  inter 

nal  evidence  that  it  was  written  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.     In  speaking  of  Hermas,  the  author  of  the  fragment  re- 

'Sec.  67.          'Sec.  103.         'Adversus  Hsereses,  lib.  i.  torn,  iii,  hares  xlii,  373. 
4  Irenseus,  lib.  i,  3.  6.  *  Adversus  Praxeam,  cap.  xv. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  491 

marks  that  he  wrote  the  (work  called)  Pastor  very  recently,  in  our 
times  (nuperrime  nostris  temporibus),  in  the  city  of  Rome,  while  his 
brother  Pius  sat  as  bishop  of  the  Church  in  the  city  of  Rome.  The 
date  of  the  episcopate  of  Pius  is  variously  stated,  some  placing  it 
A.  D.  127-142,  others  142-157.  If  we  take  the  latest  date,  and  sup 
pose  that  Hermas  wrote  about  A.  D.  150,  the  Canon  of  Muratori 
was  written  about  A.  D.  160;  otherwise  it  could  not  be  said  that  he 
wrote  very  recently  (nuperrime).  After  the  lapse  of  ten  years,  we  can 
scarcely  say  that  the  late  civil  war  in  the  United  States  was  very  re 
cently  waged.  The  fragment,  though  abounding  in  blunders  of 
transcribers,  is  sufficiently  clear  in  the  most  important  points,  and,  as 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  a  genuine  document,  it  has  been 
almost  universally  deemed  to  be  of  great  value. 

The  first  part  of  the  Canon — from  the  destruction  of  one  leaf  or 
more  of  the  MS. — is  wanting.  It  begins  with  the  words,  quibus 
tamen  inter fuit  etita  posuit :  "  at  which  he  was,  nevertheless,  present,  and 
thus  stated."  These  words  evidently  refer  to  Mark's  Gospel,  for  the 
canon  immediately  adds  :  "  the  third  book  of  the  Gospel  is  according 
to  Luke,"  after  which  it  places  the  fourth  Gospel  as  that  of  John. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  ascribes  to  Luke,  and  states  that  Paul 
wrote  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians ;  that  next  he  wrote  to  the 
Ephesians,  then  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  and  Galatians  in  or 
der,  then  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  also  to  the  Romans  in 
the  seventh  place.  It  names  two  Epistles  to  Timothy,  one  to  Titus, 
and  one  to  Philemon,  and  ascribes  the  Apocalypse  to  John,  and  also 
attributes  to  him  the  First  Epistle  which  now  bears  his  name,  a  part 
of  which  it  quotes,  and  names  two  (other)  Epistles  as  his,  and  as 
cribes  one  to  Jude.  In  this  list  we  miss  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  Epistle  of  James,  and  the  two  of  Peter.  It  says :  "  The  Apoc 
alypse  of  John  and  of  Peter  only  we  receive,  which  some  of  us  are 
not  willing  should  be  read  in  the  Church."  It  is  doubtful  whether 
this  refers  to  the  Revelations  both  of  John  and  Peter,  or  to  the  latter 
alone.  There  is  an  obscure  reference  to  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
though  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  that  book  should  be  named.  In 
the  imperfect  state  of  this  "  Canon  "  no  valid  objection  can  be  made 
against  the  omitted  books,  as  it  is  well  known  that  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  was  universally  received  in  the  early  Church.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  stood  first  in  this  "  Canon,"  l 
aj  it  was  always  placed  first  by  the  ancients. 

1  The  Canon  of  Muratori  has  been  at  different  times  published.  The  best  edition 
is  that  of  Dr.  S.  P.  Tregelles,  who  published  a  facsimile  of  it  in  1867,  made  from  the 
original  in  the  Ambrosiar.  Library  in  Milan,  which  he  accompanies  w'th  a  critical 
commentary.  This  edition  lies  before  me. 


492  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

The  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament,  sometimes  called  the 
Tbe  books  ac-  Itala,  made  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 

cording  to  the   mOst  probably  in  Northern  Africa,  contained  the  four 

Itala    version,  * 

Tertuiiiau,and   Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  the.  First 
Epistle  of  Peter,  the  First  of  John,  and  probably  the  other  two,  and 
the  Apocalypse.  These  books  were  received  by  Tertullian,  who 
flourished  in  Northern  Africa,  A.  D.  193-220,  and  they  doubtless 
were  found  in  the  old  Latin  version  to  which  he  refers  1  as  being  in 
use  in  his  time.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  he  thinks  was  written 
by  Barnabas  ; a  the  Apocalypse  he  attributes  to  the  Apostle  John.3 
He  speaks  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  by  which  he  implies  the  exist 
ence  of  at  least  one  other.4  But  we  can  find  in  his  works  no  reference 
to  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  it  is  probable  that  it  was  not  re 
ceived  by  him.  Nor  do  we  find  any  very  probable  reference  to  the 
Epistle  of  James.  Whether  it  was  received  by  him  or  not  is  diffi 
cult  to  say.  In  the  ancient  MSS.  of  the  Old  Latin  version,  preceding 
that  of  Jerome,  all  our  Books  of  the  New  Testament  are  found,  either 
entire  or  in  fragments.  But  we  canrot  assert  with  safety  that  the 
earliest  Latin  version  originally  contained  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter 
and  the  Epistle  of  James.  The  earliest  Syriac  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  Peshito,  made  in  all  probability  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  contains  all  our  canonical  books,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  Second 
and  Third  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

The  canon  of  Titus  Flavius  Clemens,  president  of  the  catechetical 
canon  of  Titus  scno°^  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  191-202),  embraced  the  four 
Flavius  cie-  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,' 
the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  the 
Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  attributes  to  John,' 
doubtless  meaning  the  apostle.  It  is  evident  from  his  language  that 
he  knew,  at  least,  of  one  other  Epistle  of  John,  for  he  quotes  the  First 
as  his  larger  epistle.7  We  can  find  no  certain  icference  to  the 
Epistle  of  James.  Of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  we  discover  not 
a  vestige.  We  find  no  reference  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  but 
this  is  not  surprising,  as  he  had  no  occasion  to  quote  it. 

Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage  (about  A.  D.  250),  uses  all  our  books 
except  Hebrews,  2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  and  Jude.  His  canon  dif 
fers  but  little,  if  any,  from  that  of  Tertullian. 

1  Liber  de  Monogamia,  cap.  xi.  2  Liber  de  Pudicitia,  cap.  xx. 

3  Advers.  Marc.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xiv.  4  De  Pudicitia,  cap.  xix. 

6  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  included  in  these. 
6Stromatum,  lib.  vi,  13.  'Ibid.,  ii,  15. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  493 

From  the  works  of  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons  (177-202),  it  is  evident 
that  his  canon  consisted  of  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  ^g  can^  of 
the  Apostles,  twelve  Epistles  of  Paul,  First  Epistle  of  Irenaeus. 
Peter,  First  and  Second  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  ascribes 
to  "  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord."  '  Besides  these  books,  he  has  a 
probable  reference  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.2  He  makes  no 
reference  to  the  Epistle  of  Philemon,  which  is  not  strange ;  none 
that  is  at  all  probable  to  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  or  to  the  Epistle 
of  Jude,  but  gives  one  passage  from  the  Epistle  of  James.3 

In  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  flourished  Origen — first  at 
Alexandria,  in  the  catechetical  school,  and  afterwards  as  presbyter  in 
Caesarea  Palestine — one  of  the  greatest  and  most  learned  Christians  of 
the  earlier  centuries.  It  is  interesting  to  inquire  what  was  his  canon 
of  New  Testament  Scripture  ?  The  canon  of  Origen  embraced  the 
four  Gospels,  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  the  orfcen's  can- 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,4  at  least  thirteen  5  Epistles  of  Paul,  on- 
the  First  Epistle  of  John,  the  First  of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  James, 
and  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  ascribes  to  the  Apostle  John.  He 
speaks  of  th'e  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  as  being  doubted,  as  well  as 
the  Second  and  the  Third  of  John  ; "  and  although  he  makes  no  use  of 
these  three  Epistles,  nor  of  Jude's,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  yet  in  the 
seventh  Homily  on  the  book  of  Joshua,  he  remarks,  "  Peter  also 
sounds  the  two  trumpets  of  his  Epistles;  also  James  and  Jude.'" 

Eusebius,  the  learned  Church  historian,  bishop  of  Csesarea  Pales 
tine  from  about  A.  D.  315  until  340,  gives  a  catalogue  The  canon  ao. 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  following  cording  to  EU- 
language :  *'  First  must  be  placed  the  holy  quaternion 
of  the  Gospels,  which  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  follows; 
after  this  are  to  be  placed  the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  after  which  we  are 
confidently  to  admit  the  reputed  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  likewise 
that  of  Peter.  After  these  are  to  be  placed,  if  it  seem  proper,  the 
Apocalypse  of  John,  concerning  which  we  will  state  the  opinions  at 
the  proper  time.  And  these  are  acknowledged.  Of  the  disputed 
books,  yet  well  known  to  the  most,  is  the  so-called  Epistle  of  James, 
the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  those 
which  are  called  the  Second  and  Third  of  John,  whether  they  belong 
to  the  evangelist,  or  to  some  one  of  the  same  name. 

1  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxvi,  i.  "Ibid.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxx,  9. 

'  Cap.  ii,  23  in  Contra  Hsereses,  lib.  iv,  cap.  xvi,  2. 

4  Which  he  ascribes  to  Luke    Horn,  vii,  in  lib.  Josh. 

6  Although  Origen  at  different  times  quotes  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  Paul's, 
yet  at  other  times  he  doubts  its  Pauline  origin.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  cap.  xxv. 
We  do  not  find  any  mention  that  Origen  makes  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon. 

8  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  xxv.  T  In  the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus 


404  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

41  Among  spurious  writings  are  to  be  reckoned  the  book  of  the  Ach 
of  Paul,  and  the  book  called  the  Shepherd,  and  the  Revelation  oj 
Peter.  Besides  these,  the  reputed  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  so- 
called  Doctrines  of  the  Apostles.  And  besides,  as  I  said,  the  Apoca 
lypse  of  John,  if  it  seem  proper,  which,  as  I  said,  some  reject,  but. 
others  reckon  as  genuine  among  the  acknowledged  books.  Already 
some  have  reckoned  among  these  (the  spurious)  The  Gospel  accord 
ing  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which  those  Hebrews  who  have  accepted 
Christ  are  greatly  pleased.  All  these  might  be  classed  as  disputed 
writings.  Nevertheless,  we  have  made  the  list  of  these  books,  as 
being  necessary,  distinguishing  the  Scriptures  that  are  true,  genuine, 
and  acknowledged,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  from 
those  writings  which  are  different  from  these,  which  are  not  in  the 
New  Testament  canon,  but  are  also  disputed,  yet  known  to  the 
most  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers.  In  this  way  we  can  know  both 
these  books  themselves,  and  those  which  are  produced  by  the  her 
etics  in  the  name  of  the  apostles,  whether  as  containing  Gospels  of 
Peter,  and  Thomas,  and  Matthew,  or  of  some  other  apostles,  or  as 
containing  the  Acts  of  Andrew  and  John,  and  of  the  other  apostles, 
none  of  which  has  any  one  in  the  succession  of  ecclesiastical  writers 
deigned  to  mention  in  his  writings.  The  character  of  the  style  also 
differs  widely  from  apostolic  usage,  and  the  purpose  and  scope  of  the 
things  contained  in  them,  diverging  as  widely  as  possible  from  true 
orthodoxy,  clearly  show  that  they  indeed  are  the  fictions  of  heretical 
men.  Wherefore  they  are  not  to  be  reckoned  among  even  spurious 
writings,  but  are  to  be  rejected  as  altogether  absurd  and  impious."1 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  canon  when  Eusebius  wrote  his  Church 
History,  a  short  time  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 

Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (A.  D.  351  and  later),  states  that  the  fol 
lowing  books  compose  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament:  The  four 
Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  seven  Catholic  Epistles  of  James, 
and  Peter,  John,  and  Jude,  and  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul.  He  con 
siders  no  other  books  of  authority.8  He  makes  no  mention  of  the 
Apocalypse. 

The  great  theologian,  Athanasius,  bishop  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  328 

The  canon  ao-  an<*  later)>  *n  nis  thirty-ninth  Festal  Epir.tle,  gives  the  fol- 

cordingtoAth-  lowing  catalogue  of  the  New  Testament  books:    Four 

Gospels,  according  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  und  John; 

the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  seven  Epistles  called  Catholic,  of  the 

apostles,  viz.,  one  of  James,  two  of  Peter,  three  of  John,  one  of  Jude. 

Besides  these,  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  arranged  in  the  following 

order:  the  first  to  the  Romans,  then  two  to  the  Corinthians,  aftei 

1  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxv.  2  Catechesis  iv,  sec.  xxxvi. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  495 

these  (one)  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Colossians, 
two  to  the  Thessalonians,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  two  to  Tim 
othy,  one  to  Titus,  and,  last,  one  to  Philemon,  and  the  Apocalypse 
of  John.  "  These  are  the  fountains  of  salvation,  so  that  whoever 
thirsts  may  fill  himself  with  the  oracles  contained  in  them.  In  these 
only  is  the  doctrine  of  piety  taught.  Let  no  one  add  to  them,  or 
take  any  thing  away  from  them."1 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  flourished  in  Cappadocia  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  fourth  century,  gives  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  which  he  enumerates  the  four  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul.  He  remarks  that  some  assert  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  spurious,  but  that  in  this  they  are  mis 
taken.  Of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  says  he,  some  say  that  seven,  others 
that  only  three,  viz.,  one  of  James,  one  of  Peter,  and  one  of  John, 
ought  to  be  received.  Some,  says  he,  accept  the  Apocalypse  of 
John,  but  the  most  assert  it  to  be  spurious.9 

Didymus  (f  396),  head  of  the  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria, 
in  addition  to  the  books  of  the  canon  everywhere  recognised,  makes 
use  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  Second -Epistle  of  Peter,  that  of 
Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

Rufinus,  of  Aquileia  in  Northern  Italy,  who  flourished  in  the  lat 
ter  half  of  the  fourth  century  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth,  gives 
the  following  list  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament :  "  Four  Gospels 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John ;  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which 
Luke  wrote ;  fourteen  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  two  of  the  Apostle 
Peter,  one  of  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  apostle ;  one  of 
Jude,  three  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John.  These  are  the 
books  which  our  fathers  included  in  the  canon,  and  from  which  they 
wished  the  principles  of  our  faith  to  be  established."1 

The  canon  of  Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  century,  embraced,  as  appears  from  his  works,   The  Q^^  of 
the  four  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  at  least  thirteen  Ambrose   and 
Epistles  of  Paul,  two  Epistles  of  Peter,  First  John,  and   Chry808tom- 
the  Apocalypse,  which  he  ascribes  to  John  the  evangelist.4 

A  question  has  been  raised  about  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle,  which  is  muti 
lated.  There  are,  however,  no  valid  grounds  for  doubting  its  genuineness.  From 
examining  the  works  of  Athanasius,  we  find  that  he  uses  ull  the  books  of  our  pres 
ent  New  Testament  canon,  except  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John  and  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  there  was  no  occasion  to  quote. 

"Carminum,  lib.  ii,  lines  290-318.         "Commentaries  in  Symbol.  Apostol.,  sec  37. 

4  We  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  reference  in  his  undoubted  works  10  James's 
Epistle,  or  Jude's  or  Second  and  Third  John,  or  Philemon.  There  was  no  occasion 
to  quote  Philemon.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  omitted  Epistles  were  received  by 


496  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

The  Canon  of  Hilary,  bishop  of  Pictavi  (Poitiers),  in  western 

Gaul,  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  centurv,  embraced 
Hilary'sCanon.  _'  _    ,  ,  . 

the  four  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  at  least  thirteen 

Epistles  of  Paul  (the  Hebrews  being  ascribed  to  him),  two  Epistles 
of  Peter,  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse.  He  man 
ifestly  regards  this  last  book  as  belonging  to  the  Apostle  John.  We 
do  not  find  any  mention  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  nor  of  Second 
and  Third  John,  which  is  not  strange,  considering  their  brevity. 
We  have  been  unable  to  find  any  reference  to  the  Epistle  of  James. 

The  Canon  of  Ephraem  '  the  Syrian,  who  flourished  about  the 
The  canon  of  middle  °f  tne  fourth  century,  embraced  the  four  Gos- 
Ephraem  the  pels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  twelve  Epistles  of  Paul 
Syrian.  (including  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  the  Epistle  of 

James,  two  Epistles  of  Peter,  First  and  Second  John,  Jude,  and  the 
Apocalypse;  of  this  last  book  he  quotes3  as  John's  a  part  of  chap, 
i,  7.  It  thus  appears  that  his  canon  included  more  books  than  the 
Peshito  version  which  omitted  Second  Peter,  Jude,  Second  and 
Third  John,  and  the  Apocalypse.  Though  we  have  not  found  any 
quotations  from  the  Ej5istles  to  Titus  and  Philemon,  we  do  not 
doubt  that  they  formed  a  part  of  Ephraem's  Canon. 

Titus,  bishop  of  Bostra,  in  Arabia,  soon  after  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century,  in  his  work  against  the  Manichaeans  uses  our  four 

Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostle,  the  Epistle  of  Paul 
Canon  of  Titus.  ,        _      .      ,  . 

to  the  Romans,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  the  one  to 

the  Ephesians,  to  the  Colossians,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
In  his  oration  on  the  Palm  Branches,  he  also  uses  the  two  Epistles  to 
Timothy,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  He  doubtless  received 
the  other3  books  of  our  canon,  which  he  had  no  occasion  to  quote 
in  the  two  named  works,  which  contain  about  one  hundred  pages. 

The  Canon  of  Methodius,  bishop  of  Patara  in  Lycia,  and  after 
ward  of  Tyre  (martyred  A.  D.  311),  as  appears  from  his  "  Convlvium 
Decem  Virginum"  which  Neander  regards  as  "the  most  important 
canon  of  Meth-  and  authentic  of  his  extant  writings,"  contained  the  four 
^^  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 

Romans,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  those  to  the  Ephesians,  Gala- 
tians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  i  Thessalonians,  the  two  Epistles  to 
Timothy,  Hebrews,  and  the  Apocalypse.  In  some  other  small 
works,  published  as  his,  we  find  a  reference  to  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  probably  the  First  of  John. 

1  The  edition  of  Ephraem's  works,  which  we  consulted,  in  the  Astor  Library, 
New  York,  is  that  published  in  Rome  in  six  volumes,  folio,  1732-46.  Three  of 
the  volumes  are  in  Syriac  and  Latin,  and  three  in  Greek  and  Latin. 

8  Ib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  146,  in  the  Greek.    3  The  Apocalypse  might  possibly  be  an  exception. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  497 

The  canon  of  the  celebrated  John  Chrysostom,  first  deacon,  then 
presbyter,  at  Antioch  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  after 
wards  bishop  of  Constantinople  (398-407),  was  as  follows,  in  his 
own  language  :  "  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  are,  the  fourteen 
Epistles  of  Paul,  the  four  Gospels,  two  belonging  to  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  John  and  Matthew,  two  of  Luke  and  Mark,  one  of  whom  was 
a  disciple  of  Peter,  and  the  other  of  Paul.  For  the  first  two  (evan 
gelists)  were  eye-witnesses  of  Christ's  life,  and  associated  with  him. 
The  other  two  (evangelists)  delivered  to  others  what  they  had  re 
ceived  from  them  (Peter  and  Paul),  the  Book  of  the  Acts,  belonging 
to  Luke,  who  related  the  transactions,  and  of  the  Catholic  Epistles 
three."1  These  three  are,  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  First  of  Peter, 
and  First  of  John,  which  we  find  quoted  in  his  works.  His  canon  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  omitting  Second 
Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

From  the  canon  of  Chrysostom  we  pass  to  that  of  Epiphanius,  the 
learned  metropolitan  bishop  in  the  island  of  Cyprus  in  the  last  part 
of  the  fourth  century.  His  canon,  as  is  seen  from  his  works,  cer 
tainly  contained  all  our  canonical  books,  with  the  possible,  but  not 
probable,  exception  of  Jude  and  the  Third  Epistle  of  John.8 

We  pass  next  to  the  celebrated  Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo  Re 
gius,  in  Northern  Africa,  from  about  395  until  430.  In  The  canon  re_ 
his  work  on  Christian  Doctrine  (lib.  ii,  cap.  viii)  he  gives  ceived  by  AU- 
the  following  list  of  the  canonical  books  af  the  New  Tes-  fi 
tament  :  "  Four  Gospels,  according  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and 
John;  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul  —  to  the  Romans,  two  to  the  Corin 
thians,  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the  Philippians,  two  to 
the  Thessalonians,  to  the  Colossians,  two  to  Timothy,  to  Titus,  to 
Philemon,  to  the  Hebrews  ;  two  of  Peter,  three  of  John,  one  of  Jude, 
and  one  of  James  ;  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  one  book,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  John  in  one  book." 

From  Augustine  we  turn  naturally  to  Jerome,  the  greatest  biblical 
scholar  in  the  early  Church.  Born  at  Stridon,  on  the  The  canon  of 
border  of  Hungary,  about  A.  D.  340,  he  studied  at  Rome,  Jerome- 


1  '~Eari  6c  K.OL  7%  Kaivris  (Atatfjfaj/f)  /3t0X/a,  at  'EniffTobai  at  6eKa.TEOoa.pes  TLavlov. 
ru  EvayyeA/a  ra  retrtrapa,  6vo  pev  rwv  fiadijTuv  TOV  Xpiarov,  'Iwavvou,  /cat  Man?alov, 
dtfo  (5e  Aot'/ca  KOL  MapKOU.  •  TQv  6  /zev  TOV  Ilerpov,  6  Se  TOV  Tlavhov  yeyovacri  fj.a&rjTai 
Ot  uev  yap  duroTrrat  rjaav  yeyei^/zevot,  KOI  ovyyevbfjiEvoi  r<p  Xptar<p.  'Of  oe  Trap'  iitei- 
»>uv  ra  EKSLVUV  tiiadeZdfAevoi  etf  eTepov$  t^rjveyKav  KCU  TO  T<JV  Hpd^euv  de  (3i(37t,iov,  Kdi 
ci/ro  AOUKO  loTopijoavToq  TU  yevofieva,  nal  rwv  /ca#oA(Ktiv  'ETaaro^a:  7pt£f.  —  Synopsis 
of  Holy  Scripture,  vol.  vi,  Migne's  edition. 

'We  have  one  probable  reference  to  Jude  in  Adversus  Hoeres.,  lib.  i,  torn,  iii, 
xlii  Hseres.     We  find  no  reference  to  the  Third  Epistle  of  John,  which  there  was  no 
occasion  to  quote. 
VOL.  I.—  32 


498  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

and,  after  spending  a  considerable  number  of  years  in  different  parts 
of  Gaul  and  Italy,  he  left  for  the  East  about  385,  wheie  he  spent  the 
rest  of  his  life,  principally  at  Bethlehem,  in  Palestine,  dying  there 
A.  D.  420.  The  statement  of  a  scholar  of  such  learning  and  exten 
sive  travels  respecting  the  canonical  Books  of  the  New  Testament 
must  be  of  great  value.  In  the  Introduction  to  his  Commentary  on 
Matthew  he  gives  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  four  Gospels  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  which  he  regards  as  the  only  au 
thentic  histories  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  his  work  on  illustrious  men 
he  attributes  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  Luke,  the  companion  of 
Paul.  To  Paul  he  ascribes  one  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  two  to  the 
Corinthians,  one  to  the  Galatians,  one  to  the  Ephesians,  one  to  the 
Philippians,  one  to  the  Colossians,  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  two  to 
Timothy,  one  to  Titus,  and  one  to  Philemon.  But  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  not  believed  to  be  his,  he  says,  on  account  of  its  dif 
ference  of  style  and  language,  but  is  supposed  to  belong  either  to 
Barnabas,  according  to  Tertullian,  or  to  the  evangelist  Luke,  accord 
ing  to  some,  or  to  Clement,  afterwards  bishop  of  the  Roman  Church, 
who,  they  say,  arranged  and  adorned  in  his  own  language  the 
thoughts  of  Paul. 

Of  James  he  remarks,  that  "  he  wrote  one  epistle  only,  which,  it 
is  asserted,  was  published  by  some  one  else  under  the  apostle's  name, 
notwithstanding  it  has  gradually  obtained  authority  in  the  course  of 
time."  Respecting  Peter,  he  remarks  :  "  He  wrote  two  epistles  which 
are  called  catholic,  the  second  of  which  is  denied  by  most  persons 
to  be  his,  on  account  of  its  style  being  different  from  that  of  the  first 
epistle."  He  states  that  the  Epistle  of  Jude  is  rejected  by  most  per 
sons,  because  its  author  makes  use  of  testimony  in  it  from  the  apoc 
ryphal  Book  of  Enoch.  He  adds:  "Nevertheless,  it  has  deserved 
authority  from  its  antiquity  and  use,  and  is  reckoned  among  the 
sacred  Scriptures."  He  attributes  to  the  Apostle  John  one  epistle, 
"  which  is  approved  by  all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  and  learned 
men,"  but  says  that  the  Second  and  Third  of  John  are  asserted  to 
belong  to  John  the  presbyter  of  Ephesus.  To  the  Apostle  John  he 
ascribes  the  Apocalypse.1 

The  canon  in       ^o  tnese  testimonies  to  the  canon  of  the  New  Testa- 

tne  older  ver-   ment  maybe  added  that  furnished  |py  the  Memphitic  (or 

Coptic),  Theban  (or  Sahidic),  ^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian 

versions2  of  the  New  Testament.    The  two  Egyptian  versions,  Mem- 

1  Liber  de  Viris  Illustribus. 

*  The  Gothic  version  was  made  in  the  fourth  century  by  Ulfilas.  Of  this  version 
fragments  of  the  four  Gospels  and  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul  have  been  found  and 
published.  Whether  Ulfilas  translated  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  is  uncertain. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  499 

phitic  and  Theban,  were  made  about  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen 
tury.  The  first  of  these  contained  all  the  books  of  our  present 
canon,  and  so,  doubtless,  did  the  other,  though  there  have  been  no 
remains  of  Titus  and  Philemon  found  in  it.  The  ^Ethiopic  and  Ar 
menian  versions,  made  in  the  fourth  century,  contained  all  our  pres 
ent  canon. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  our  subject  we  may  remark,  that  while 
the  genuineness  and  authority  of  some  of  the  less  important  books 
of  oui  present  canon  were  at  various  times  called  in  question  by 
Christian  scholars,  we  have  at  the  same  time  seen,  that  from  the  mid 
dle  of  the  second  century  downwards,  the  most  of  our  sacred  writ 
ings,  embracing  the  most  important,  namely,  the  four  Gospels,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, 
and  the  First  offohn,were  received  everywhere  throughout  the  Chris 
tian  world  without  any  doubt  respecting  their  genuineness  and  au 
thority.  Such  a  universal  reception,  so  close  to  the  apostolic  age, 
furnishes  an  incontrovertible  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  these  writ 
ings.  Numerous  passages  from  these  books  are  interwoven  in  the 
discourses  and  discussions  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church  from  the  last 
half  of  the  second  century  downwards,  forming  an  integral  part  of 
their  principles  arid  arguments.  Great  use  was  also  made  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse  ;  but  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  James,  and  that  of  Jude,  were  little  used  in 
the  first  three  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age.1 

1  The  Second  Epistle  of  John  is  rarely  quoted.  It  consists  of  but  thirteen  verses. 
*nd  there  was  hardly  any  occasion  to  use  it ;  still  less  to  quote  the  Third. 


500  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  X. 

GENUINENESS  OF    CANONICAL    BOOKS  OF   NEW   TESTAMENT 
THE    FOUR    GOSPELS. 

"IITE  have  already  seen  that  the  four  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark. 

*  *  Luke,  and  John  were  everywhere  received  throughout  the  whole 
universal  re-  Christian  world,  forming  a  part  of  all  the  early  version? 
fou^Gospeisin  °^  tne  New  Testament,  from  the  old  Latin  version  and 
the  church.  the  Peshito-Syriac  of  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
to  the  Armenian  and  Gothic  in  the  fourth;  that  they  were  ac 
knowledged  to  be  the  works  of  the  authors  whose  names  they 
bear,  and  are  quoted  as  containing  the  authentic  history  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  all  the  Christian  writers  throughout  the  world,  from  Justin 
Martyr  (about  A.  D.  140)  to  Jerome  and  Augustine  (about  A.  D. 
400).  Such  unanimity  upon  a  subject  of  deepest  interest,  which  at 
tracted  a  world-wide  attention,  is  of  itself  a  strong  ground  for  belief 
that  we  possess  in  these  four  Gospels  the  genuine  history  of  Christ, 
delivered  by  two  of  his  apostles  and  two  of  their  companions.  If 
these  four  documents  contained  nothing  but  ordinary  history,  this  una 
nimity  of  testimony  would  be  considered  as  absolutely  conclusive, 
and  no  further  consideration  of  the  subject  would  be  deemed  neces 
sary.  But  as  these  books,  if  genuine,  establish  the  title  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Messiah,  and  his  right  to  the  homage  and  obedience 
of  mankind,  men  are  disposed  to  ask  for  stronger  testimony  to 
establish  their  genuineness  than  they  would  demand  to  support  the 
claims  of  ordinary  history.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that 
the  truth  of  Christianity  does  not  depend  upon  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  and  that  the  universally  acknowledged  apostolic  Epis 
tles  would  establish  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity,  espec 
ially  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  which,  in  fact,  stands  inde 
pendent  of  even  their  testimony.  But  without  these  Gospels  we 
would  have  no  authentic  history  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  and 
the  system  would  be  mutilated.1 

In  presenting  the  external  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  in  a  more  definite  and  specific  manner,  we  may  begin  with 
the  learned  Church  historian,  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caesarea  Palestine, 

1  It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  the  fact  of  the  reception  of  our  Gospels  in 
the  apostolic  age,  or  immediately  afterward,  would  show  that  they  were  regarded 
as  containing  the  authentic  history  of  Christ,  and  their  authority  would  be  of  great 
value,  even  though  not  written  by  those  whose  names  they  bear. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  501 

who  wrote  his  history  of  the  Church  a  short  time  before  the  Council 
of  Nicsea,  which  was  held  A.  D.  325.  Eusebius  had  the  E^erna^f  etvi- 
advantages  of  the  library  of  ecclesiastical  writers  which  ^uineness  of 
his  friend  Pamphilus  had  collected  at  Caesarea.  Many  the  Gospel*. 
of  these  writings  are  lost,  especially  many  of  those  belonging  to  the 
first  part  of  the  second  century,  whose  testimony  to  the  genuineness 
and  authority  of  the  four  Gospels  would  be  of  the  greatest  value; 
among  these  lost  writings  may  be  named,  The  Defense  of  Christian 
ity,  by  Quadratus  ;  the  Refutation  of  Basilides,by  Agrippa  Castor; 
and  PapiasV  Exposition  of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord.  We  cannot  for 
a  moment  suppose  that  the  testimony  of  the  early  writings  that  have 
been  lost  was  adverse  to  the  authority  of  our  Gospels.  For  had  this 
been  the  case,  we  should  certainly  have  heard  of  it  from  some  source, 
and  in  all  probability  from  Eusebius  himself,  whose  statements,  based 
upon  his  thorough  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  is, 
to  a  great  extent,  a  reflection  of,  if  not  a  substitute  for,  these  early 
writings  that  are  lost. 

In  giving  a  list  of  the  books  of  Scripture  undisputed,  Eusebius  re 
marks:  "First  must  be  placed  the  holy  quaternion  of  the  Gospels."11 
He  also  states  :  "  Of  all  the  apostles  of  the  Lord,  Matthew  and  John 
alone  have  left  us  memoirs;  and  tradition  says,  they  wrote  from  ne 
cessity  :  for  Matthew,  having  before  preached  the  gospel  to  the 
Hebrews,  when  he  was  about  to  depart  to  other  people,  having  de 
livered  in  his  native  tongue  the  Gospel  according  to  him,  by  this 
writing  he  supplied  the  want  of  his  presence  to  those  whom  he  was 
leaving:  and  Mark  and  Luke,  having  already  published  the  Gospels 
according  to  them,  they  say  that  John,  who  had  the  whole  time 
preached  the  gospel  without  writing,  finally  wrote  on  the  following 
account  :  The  three  Gospels  that  have  already  been  described  hav 
ing  been  spread  abroad  among  all  men,  and  known  to  John  himself, 
they  say  that  he  bore  witness  to  their  truth,  but  affirming  that  they 
lacked  only  an  account  of  those  things  done  by  Christ  at  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry.  And  the  statement  is  true."3  He  speaks  also  of 
the  Gospel  of  John  as  being  "  uncontradicted,"  and  received  by  the 
whole  Church,  and  that  "  it  was  rightly  placed  the  fourth  in  order 
after  the  other  three,  by  the  ancients."  The  testimony  of  Eusebius 
is  stronger  from  the  very  fact  that  he  expresses  doubts  concerning 
some  of  the  other  books  of  our  canon. 

We  next  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Origen,  who  flourished  in  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century.  In  his  Commentary  on  Testimony  of 
Matthew  he  observes  :  "  As  I  have  learned  by  tradition 


1  He,  however,  in  a  preserved  fragment,  as  we  shall  see,  speaks  of  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Mark.      2  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxv.      3  Ibid.,  cap.  xxiv.     4  Ibid. 


502  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

respecting  the  four  Gospels,  which  also  alone  are  uncontradictcd  in  the 
Church  of  God  under  the  heavens,1  that  the  Gospel  according  to  Matth 
ew,  once  a  publican  but  afterwards  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  was 
written  first,  being  delivered  by  him  to  the  Jewish  believers,  composed 
in  the  Hebrew  language.'  The  second  is  that  according  to  Mark, 
who  composed  it  according  to  Peter's  instructions.  Wherefore,  in 
his  Catholic  Epistle  he  acknowledged  him  to  be  his  son,  saying,  in 
these  words :  c  She  who  in  Babylon  is  elected  with  you,  saluteth 
you,  and  Mark,  my  son.'  The  third  is,  that  according  to  Luke,  (the 
Gospel  commended  by  Paul),  which  he  wrote  for  those  who  were  of 
the  Gentiles.  Lastly,  that  according  to  John."  *  It  will  be  remem 
bered  that  Origen,  also,  had  doubts  respecting  some  of  the  other 
books  of  the  canon,  which  fact  makes  his  testimony  stronger  re 
specting  the  Gospels. 

Tertullian,  presbyter  of  Carthage,  who  flourished  in  the  latter  part 
Testimony  of  of  the  second  century  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  third, 
Tertullian.  jn  defending,  against  Marcion,  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  which 
the  heretic  had  abridged  and  adopted,  remarks ;  "  If  it  is  evident 
that  that  is  more  true  which  was  first,  that  that  is  first  which  was 
from  the  beginning,  that  what  was  from  the  beginning  was  from  the 
npostles,  certainly,  in  the  same  manner,  it  will  be  evident  that  what 
has  been  held  sacred  in  the  Churches  of  the  apostles  was  delivered 
by  the  apostles.  ...  I  say,  therefore,  that  not  only  in  those  Churches 
which  were  founded  by  the  apostles,  but  in  all  those  which  hold 
communion  with  them,  this  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  we  are  especially 
defending,  existed  from  its  first  publication.  The  same  authority  of 
the  apostolic  Churches  will  defend  the  other  Gospels  also,  which  we 
accordingly  have  through  these  Churches,  and  according  to  them — 
I  mean  the  Gospels  of  John  and  Matthew — and  it  may  be  also  af 
firmed  that  what  Mark  published  is  Peter's,  whose  interpreter  he 
was;  for  also  they  are  accustomed  to  ascribe  to  Paul  Luke's  Digest 
(Gospel)/'3  It  is  evident  from  this  passage  that  Tertullian  was  fully 
assured  that  our  Gospels  had  been  authorities  in  the  Churches  from 
their  first  publication,  and  he  could  have  had  no  difficulty  in  ascer 
taining  the  facts  in  the  case. 

The  testimon         Clement,  the  learned  instructor  in  the  catechetical 

of  clement  of   school  of  Alexandria,  a  man  of  extensive  travels,  who 

flourished  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century  and  in 

the  beginning  of  the  third,  delivers  the  following  concerning  the  four 

1  The  Greek  is,  TIfpt  TUV  T£ffaapuv'Evnvy£^,iit)vt  a  «oi  {ibva  avavrippijTu  banv  kv  T$ 
t;7ro  rm>  ovpavov  'RKKhrjaia  TOV  Qsnv. 

2  This  passage  is  preserved  in  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xxv,  from  Ori- 
gen's  Commentary  on  Matthew.     The  first  part  of  that  work  is  lost. 

8Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  iv,  cap.  v. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  503 

Gospels:  "Those  Gospels  which  contain  the  genealogies  (Matthew 
and  Luke)  were  written  first.  The  Gospel  according  to  Mark  had 
its  origin  in  the  following  manner:  When  Peter  had  preached  tru 
word  publicly  in  Rome,  and  had  proclaimed  the  Gospel  through  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  many  who  were  present  besought  Mark,  as 
he  had  followed  Peter  for  a  long  time,  and  remembered  the  things 
which  he  had  said,  that  he  would  write  them  down,  and  accordingly 
he  composed  the  Gospel,  and  delivered  it  to  those  who  wished  it. 
When  Peter  became  aware  of  this,  he  attempted  neither  to  prevent 
him  nor  to  encourage  him.  Finally,  John,  perceiving  that  corporeal 
things  are  related  in  the  Gospels,  being  urged  by  his  friends,  and 
being  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  he  composed  a  spiritual  Gospel."  Eu- 
sebius  prefaces  this  quotation  from  Clement's  lost  work,  'TTrorvrroxretc, 
with  the  remark:  "In  these  same  books  Clement  delivers  the  tradi 
tion  of  the  oldest  presbyters  respecting  the  order  of  the  Gospels  in 
this  manner."  ] 

Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul  (A.  D.  177-202),  delivers  the 
following  testimony  respecting  the  Gospels :  "  Matthew,  Testimony  oi 
indeed,  among  the  Hebrews,  delivered  in  their  own  dia-  Irenaeus. 
lect  the  writing  of  the  Gospel,  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching 
the  gospel  at  Rome  and  founding  the  Church.  After  their  depar 
ture,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  himself  wrote  and 
delivered  to  us  the  things  preached  by  Peter.  And  Luke,  the  fol 
lower  of  Paul,  delivered  in  a  book  the  gospel  preached  by  him 
Afterwards  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  leaned  upon  his 
breast,  also  himself  published  his  Gospel  while  he  abode  in  Eph- 
esus  of  Asia."2  He  also  declares,  that  "  there  are  but  four  Gospels, 
nor  can  there  be  fewer  than  these.  For  since  there  are  four  quarters 
of  the  world  in  which  we  live,  and  four  universal  winds,  and  the 
Church  is  spread  over  all  the  earth,  and  the  pillar  and  support  of  the 
Church  is  the  gospel  and  breath  of  life,  naturally  it  (the  Church) 
has  four  pillars,  blowing  from  all  quarters  immortality,  and  impart 
ing  new  life  to  men."3 

This  language  of  Irenaeus  shows  that  our  four  Gospels  were  alone 
received,  and  it  entirely  excludes  all  apocryphal  Gospels,  as  having 
no  authority  in  the  Church.  It  has,  indeed,  been  said4  that  the 
idea  of  four  quarters  of  the  world  was  something  so  important  and 
fixed  with  Irenaeus  that  he  thought  there  should  be  four  Gospels  to 
correspond  to  it.  But  this  would  be  to  reverse  the  natural  order  of 
things,  for  the  number  four  is  in  no  respect  a  sacred  or  peculiar 
number,  and  four  quarters  of  the  world  and  four  winds  suggested 

1  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xiv.  4  Adversus  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap  i. 

3  Ibid.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  8.  4  By  Schenkel. 


504  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

themselves  obviously  from  the  fact  that  there  were  no  moie  nor  less 
than  four  Gospels — a  reason  for  which  fact  he  was  anxiously  seeking. 
Had  there  been  five  Gospels,  Irenaeus  might  have  found  a  reason 
for  this  in  the  fact  that  the  Pentateuch,  the  foundation  of  the  old 
dispensation,  consists  of  five  books.  Had  there  been  three  Gospels, 
he  might  have  illustrated  it  by  the  fact  that  God  is  revealed  as  a 
trinity  in  Father,  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Had  there  been  two,  it 
had  its  analogy  in  there  being  two  great  classes  for  whom  they  were 
intended,  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Had  there  been  but  one  Gospel,  he 
might  have  explained  it  as  indicating  the  Divine  unity  against  the 
paganism  of  the  ancient  world !  * 

The  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  the  more  valuable  from  the  fact  that 
the  early  part  of  his  life  was  spent  in  Asia  Minor,  and  that  he  was 
acquainted  with  Polycarp,2  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  and, 
doubtless,  with  others  who  knew  that  apostle. 

Tatian  the  Syrian,  who  had  been  a  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  left 
Diatessaron  ot  Rome  after  the  death  of  his  master  (about  A.  D.  165"), 
Tatian  the  syr-  and  founded  a  heretical  sect  in  Mesopotamia.  He  com 
posed,  as  Eusebius*  informs  us,  a  combination  and  col 
lection  of  the  Gospels,  he  knew  not  how,  which  Tatian  called  The 
Diatessaron  (made  of  four).  It,  consequently,  must  have  been 
composed  of  our  four  Gospels.  Epiphanius  remarks  on  him,  "It  is 
said  that  The  Diatessaron  was  composed  by  him,  which  some  call 
(the  Gospel)  according  to  the  Hebrews."4  Theodoret,  bishop  of 
Cyrrhus  in  Syria  (about  A.  D.  423-457),  relates,  in  speaking  of 
Tatian :  "  He  composed  the  Gospel  which  is  called  Diatessaron,  by 
cutting  out  the  genealogies  and  whatever  else  shows  that  the  Lord 
sprang  from  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh.  Not  only  did 
those  who  belong  to  his  party  use  it,  but  also  those  who  follow  the 
apostolic  doctrine,  not  knowing  the  mischievous  character  of  the 
composition,  but  in  a  very  simple  way  using  the  book  as  an  epitome. 
I  found  more  than  two  hundred  of  these  books  held  in  honor  in  our 
Churches,  all  of  which  I  removed,  and  substituted  for  them  the 
Gospels  of  the  four  evangelists."1  Barsalibi,  bishop  of  Amida,  in 
Mesopotamia,  in  the  twelfth  century,  states  that  Tatian,  the  dis 
ciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  composed  one  Gospel  from  the  four,  which 

1  Jerome  remarks  that  the  four  Gospels  had  been  predicted  long  before      He  ex 
plains  the  four  faces  of  the  cherubim  in  Ezekiel  i  to  refer  to  the  four  Gospels:  the 
face  of  a  man  represents  Matthew's  Gospel ;  the  face  of  a  lion,  Mark's  ;  the  face  of 
the  ox  (or  calf),  Luke's  ;  the  face  of  an  eagle,  John's  Gospel. — Comment,  in  Matt. 

2  Epistle  to  Florinus.  3  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  29. 
4  Hsereses,  lib.  i,  torn,  iii,  Hseresis  xlvi. 

6  Haeret.  Fabul.  Compend.,  lib.  i,  cap.  xx. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  505 

he  called  Diatessaron.  Saint  Ephraem  wrote  comments  on  this 
book,  and  fo.llowed  the  order  of  the  Diatessaron.1  According  to 
Barsalibi,  the  Diatessaron  began  thus  :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
word."  This  Commentary  of  Ephraem,  preserved  in  the  Armenian 
language,  was  translated  into  Latin  by  J.  B.  Aucher  in  1841.  An 
improved  translation  of  the  Commentary  was  published  by  Georgius 
Moesinger,  in  Venice,  1876.*  Tatian  shows,  by  quoting  in  his 
Oratio  Ad  Graecos,  John  i,  3  (sec.  19),  and  i,  5  (sec.  13),  that  he  ac 
knowledged  the  fourth  Gospel.  Further,  it  is  clear  that  he  considered 
the  four  Gospels  alone  as  containing  the  authentic  history  of 
Christ. 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch  (A.  D.  169-180),  speaks  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Gospels,3  and  quotes  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John 
(by  name). 

The  Canon  of  Muratori  states  that  the  third  Gospel  is  that  of 
Luke,  and  the  fourth  is  that  of  John.  The  first  part  of  the  canon 
is  lost,  but  no  one  doubts  that  its  first  and  second  Gospels  were 
those  of  Matthew  and  Mark. 

The  next  witness  for  the  four  Gospels  is  Justin  Martyr,  the  phi 
losopher,  the  first  of  whose  extant  works,  the  Apology,  justin  Martyr 
addressed  to  Antoninus  Pius,  was  written  about  A.  D.  as  a  witness. 
138  or  139,*  at  any  rate  not  later  than  147.  Justin  Martyr 
in  his  Apology  says  that  Christ  was  born  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before ;  but  this  may  be  in  round  numbers.  In  speaking  of 
the  rebellion  of  the  Jews  against  the  Romans  under  Barchocheba-j, 
an  impostor,  he  remarks  :  "  In  the  Jewish  war  that  hasfusffwiv  (vi  v) 
been  made."5  This  war  was  fought  for  three  years,  and  was  ended 
A.  D.  135.  If  Justin  wrote  A.  D.  138  or  139,  the  expression  "  juit 
now  "  (vvv)  would  be  appropriate,  being  but  three  or  four  years  after 
the  event,  but  wholly  unsuitable  A.  D.  147,  twelve  years  after. 

He  already  speaks  of  the  heretic  Marcion,  but  this  furnishes  no 
valid  proof  that  Justin  wrote  later  than  A.  D.  139,  as  it  is  well  known 

1  Assemanni  Bib.  Or.,  vol.  i,  p.  57. 

-  A  copy  of  this  work  lies  before  me.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  the 
genuine  Commentary  of  Ephraem  on  the  Diatessaron.  For  it  corresponds  to  the 
ancient  description  of  it.  It  is  an  epitome  of  our  four  Gospels,  and  lacks  the 
genealogies,  both  of  which  facts  Theodoret,  who  had  seen  the  work,  states.  It 
begins,  as  Barsalibi  says  :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  word."  Like  the  old  Cure- 
Ionian  Syriac,  it  joins  the  last  part  of  John  i,  3,  to  verse  4.  In  the  same  manner 
I  find  Tatian  ends  John  i,  3,  in  his  Oratio  Ad  Graecos. 

3  Ad  Autolycum,  lib.  iii,  12. 

4  Gieseler  assigns  it  to  A.  D.  138  or  139  ;  Volkmar  and  Hilgenfeld,  to  A.  D.  147. 
6  'Ev  rip  vvv  •ye-yev7j/u£v(f)'lov6aiK(i  TTO/U/ZCJ. — Apologia,  sec.  31. 


506  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

that  Marcion  appeared  about  that  time,  with  his  heresy,  at  Rome,  at 
which  city  Justin  in  all  probability  wrote  the  Apology.  Justin,  liv 
ing  at  such  an  early  age,  is  an  important  witness  for  the  genuineness 
and  authority  of  the  Gospels.  In  speaking  of  the  Lord's  supper,  he 
remarks :  "  The  apostles,  in  the  Memoirs  composed  by  them,  which  are 
called  Gospels,  have  thus  delivered — that  Jesus  commanded  them, 
when  he  had  taken  bread  and  given  thanks,  saying:  'Do  this  in 
remembrance  of  me,'  "  l  etc. 

In  his  description  of  Christian  worship  he  states :  "  All  who  dwell 
in  the  cities,  or  in  the  country,  collect  together  on  the  day  called 
Sunday,  and  the  Memoirs  of  the  apostles  and  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  are  read  as  long  as  time  allows,"*  etc. 

In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  written  a  few  years  later 
than  the  first  Apology,  Justin  more  accurately  describes  the  Gospels  : 
"In  the  Memoirs,  which,  I  say,  were  composed  by  his  (Christ's)  apos- 
ttes  and  their  companions,  (it  is  stated)  that  sweat,  as  great  drops  of 
blood,  fell  from  him  as  he  prayed,  and  said,  If  it  be  possible,  let  this 
cup  pass  from  me."3  After  quoting  both  from  Matthew  and  Luke 
on  the  miraculous  conception  and  the  birth  of  Christ,  he  adds  :  '*  As 
those  who  have  related4  all  things  concerning  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  teach,  whom  we  believe." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Gospels  to  which  Justin  refers  as 
being  written  by  the  apostles  and  their  companions,  and  read  on 
Sunday  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Christians,  were  the  very 
Gospels  that  we  now  have,  bearing  the  names  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John.  The  first  Apology  of  sixty  pages  contains  about 
forty  passages,  or  about  fifty-five  verses,  mostly  from  Matthew  and 
Luke — from  Matthew  especially — and  one  from  John.  Some  of  them 
may  have  been  taken  from  Mark,  but  it  is  impossible  to  determine 
this  with  certainty,  as  none  of  them  are  peculiar  to  that  evangelist. 
But,  from  the  language  used  by  Justin  respecting  the  evangelists, 
there  could  not  have  been  less  than  two  who  were  companions  of  the 
apostles ;  and  as  the  Gospel  of  Mark  was  certainly  one  of  the  four 
in  use  in  the  age  of  Justin,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  in  his 
collection.  In  speaking  of  baptism  and  regeneration,  he  remarks: 
"  For  Christ  said,  If  you  be  not  born  again,  you  cannot  enter  into 

1  'Of  -yap  anoaTohoi  kv  rols  yevopevoir  VTT'  avrtiv  aTro/nvrjfj.ovsv/jaatv^  a.  Kufajrai  'Ei>- 
jr)r/Ua,  ovTU£  irapifiuKav  EVTerdh&ai  avrolc  TOV  ^Irjaovv,  K.  T.  A. — Apologia,  see.  06 

2  Ty  TOV  rj^iov  Afyo^ei'T?  rju^pa  TCUVTUV  Kara  7r6fai£  rj  aypovs  fievovrcjv  em  TO  ai-rn  av- 
vtTiKvaig  yiverai,  nal  TU  tnroftvri/LiovEvpaTa  TUV  uiroaTohw  77  TU  avyypdfifiaTa  TIOV 

ruv  avayi.yv&aKETat.  fi^xp^  fyxuP^- — Apjiogia,  I,  sec.  67. 

s'Ev  yap  roZf  a'irofivTjfjiovf.vfiaaL  a  <J>TJ/J.I  VTTO  TUV  uTroaro^uv  OVTOV  KOI  rtiv 
trvvrerajtfat,  K.  r.  X. — Sec.  103. 
. — Apologia,  I,  sec.  33- 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES  507 

the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  that  it  is  impossible  for  those  once  born 
to  enter  the  wombs  of  their  mothers  is  evident  to  all."1  This  pas 
sage,  from  its  singularity,  was  evidently  taken  from  John's  Gospel.9 
In  this  first  Apology  of  Justin  every  other  passage  respecting  the 
history  of  Christ  is  taken  from  our  canonical  Gospels,  and  there  is 
not  a  trace  of  any  other  source  for  the  history  of  Christ.  Hence, 
apart  from  the  peculiarity  of  the  passage,  the  probability  would  be 
very  great  that  it  was  taken  from  some  one  of  our  received  Gospels. 

The  quotations  of  Justin  are  not  always  exact,  but  the  sense  is  the 
same  as  that  in  the  evangelists.  As  several  evangelists  have  often 
neaily  the  same  passages,  he  sometimes  combines  them.  His  quo 
tations  of  the  Septuagint  of  the  Old  Testament  are  scarcely  more 
exact  than  those  from  ths  New  Testament.  In  most  cases  he  seems 
to  have  quoted  from  memory.  But  the  very  fact  that  his  quotations 
from  the  Gospels  are  not  always  exact,  is  a  proof  that  these  pas 
sages  are  genuine,  and  have  not  been  tampered  with  by  transcribers, 
to  conform  them  to  the  New  Testament  text. 

In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  held  at  Ephesus  shortly 
after  A.  D.  I35,3  but  not  written  down  until  some  years  later,  Justin 
quotes  about  thirty  passages  from  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  one  from 
John's  Gospel,  in  which  the  Baptist  says,  "I  am  not  the  Christ."' 
In  arguing  with  a  Jew,  Justin  was  led  to  quote  the  Old  Testament 
more  frequently  than  the  New.  In  quoting  a  passage  from  Matthew 
he  prefaces  it  with  the  statement :  "  And  it  is  written  in  the  Gospel."1 
He  calls  these  Gospels  "the  Memoirs  of  the  apostles;"6  "Me 
moirs  written  by  the  apostles  and  their  companions."7  There  is  a 
clear  reference  to  Mark's  Gospel  in  the  statement  that  "  Christ 
changed  the  names  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  called  them 
Boanerges,  which  is,  Sons  of  Thunder."  This,  he  states,  is  written  "  in 
the  Memoirs  of  him"8  (Christ).  Mark,  it  must  be  remembered,  is 
the  only  evangelist  who  relates  the  giving  of  this  name  to  the  sons 
of  Zebedee.  In  the  account  of  Christ's  baptism,  he  remarks  :  "  And 
a  voice  at  the  same  time  came  from  heaven,  which  is  also  uttered  by 
David  when  he  speaks  as  of  his  person  (Christ)  what  the  Fathei 
was  about  to  say  to  him :  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begot- 

*In  sec.  61,  from  John  iii,  3-5. 

'  Ililgenfeld,  in  his  Einleitung  (Leipzig,  1875),  acknowledges  that  Justin  here  use* 
John's  Gospel. 

1  Tliis  dale  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  beginning  of  the  Dialogue,  in  which  Tryphc- 
tells  Justin  that  he  is  a  Hebrew  of  the  circumcision  who  has  fled  from  the  war/wj* 
now  (vvv)  finished,  that  is,  the  war  stirred  up  by  Barchochebas,  A.  D.  132-135. 
4  Sec.  88.  6Sec.  100.  65ec.  101. 

'Sec.  103.  8  Sec.  106.  9Chap.  iii,  17. 


608  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

ten  thee.1  But  the  language  of  Matthew  is:  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  It  seems  clear  that  Justin,  in  ar 
guing  with  the  Jew,  wished  to  bring  the  language  in  the  Gospel  as  far 
as  possible  into  harmony  with  the  declaration  of  the  Psalm/ 

Hilgenfeld3  acknowledges  that  Justin  used  our  four  Gospels,  and 
that  they  were  used  in  divine  service,  but  thinks  that  he  also  made 
use  of  the  older  Acts  of  Pilate  and  an  uncanonical  Gospel.  But  Jus 
tin  made  no  use  of  the  Acts  of  Pilate  ;  he  simply  states :  "  And  that 
these  things  were  done  you  can  learn  from  the  Acts  that  were  made 
(written)  in  the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate."  4 

Strauss  acknowledges  that  Justin  made  use  of  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  but  thinks  that  he  may  have  also  used 
an  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel.  He  denies  that  Justin  used 
John's  Gospel.5 

The  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  to  the  apostolic  origin,  the  use,  and 

m   the  authority  of  our  four  Gospels,  is  of  the  highest  im- 
Importance  of 

Justin  Martyr's  portance.  He  was  a  Platonic  philosopher,  converted 
testimony.  tQ  diristianity  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century. 
He  had  visited  Ephesus  and  Rome,  and  was  evidently  well  ac 
quainted  with  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  Can  we  suppose  that  a  man 
of  his  character  would  not  inform  himself  of  the  origin  of  the  Gos 
pels?  His  statement  that  they  were  written  by  the  apostles  and 
their  companions  could  not  have  been  a  mere  guess.  For  how  could 
he  determine,  a  priori^  whether  the  apostles  or  their  companions 
wrote,  or  some  of  each  class  ?  If  he  had  nothing  but  conjecture 
to  follow,  he  would  in  all  probability  have  ascribed  all  the  Gospels 
to  apostles,  the  witnesses  of  the  teaching  and  acts  of  Christ.  We 
learn  from  him  that  our  Gospels  were  read  in  the  Christian  assem 
blies  on  Sunday,  along  with  the  writings  of  the  Jewish  prophets.  This 
custom  was,  doubtless,  universal.  Hegesippus,  a  Church  teacher 
of  Jewish  origin,  made  a  journey  to  Rome,  whither  he  arrived  under 
Bishop  Anicetus  (A.  D.  157-161).  On  the  way  thither  he  conferred 
with  many  bishops,  and  in  his  'Memoirs  of  the  Church  (in  five 
books)  he  states  that  "  in  each  succession  (of  bishops)  and  in  every 
city  (the  doctrines)  are  just  such  as  the  law  and  the  prophets 

1  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  sec.  88. 

2  There  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  the  account  of  Christ's  baptism  in  the  Gospel 
of  the  Ebionites,  as  it   stood  in  the  fourth  century.     For  Lactantius  (A.  D.  314) 
quotes  the  passage  in  the  same  form  (Div.  Inst.,  B.  iv,  cap.  xv,  i)  as  Justin. 

3  Einleitung,  pp.  65-67.     Leipzig,  1875. 

4  Kal  ravra  cm  yiyove,  dvvaa&e  patielv  e/c  T&V  km  Tlovriov  ILAarov  -ytvopevuv  a«« 
TUV. — First  Apology,  sec.  35. 

6  Das  Leben  Jesu,  pp.  56-67.     Leipzig,  1874. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  509 

and  the  Lord  teacfi" '  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  by  the  teaching  of 
the  Lord,  Hegesippus  refers  to  the  reading  of  the  Gospels  in  the 
Churches  along  with  the  law  and  the  prophets.  He  thus  confirms 
the  statement  of  Justin,  already  alluded  to,  respecting  the  use  of  our 
Gospels. 

In  speaking  of  chastity  as  taught  by  our  Lord,  Justin  remarks : 
"There  are  many  men  and  women,  sixty  and  seventy  value  of  Jus- 
years  of  age,  who  became  disciples  of  Christ  in  early  tin's  testimony, 
youth  (etc  naiSuv),  and  continue  incorrupt.  And  I  declare  that  among 
every  race  of  men  I  can  show  such  persons.  For  what  shall  we  say 
of  that  countless  multitude  of  men  who  have  been  converted  from  a 
licentious  life  and  have  learned  these  things?  "  Justin,  then,  knew 
many  who  had  been  converted  to  Christianity  in  the  last  part  of  the 
first  century,  when  the  Apostle  John  3  was  still  alive.  At  Ephesus 
he  must  have  seen  many  who  had  been  acquainted  with  that  apostle. 
If  the  Gospel  of  John  had  not  been  acknowledged  in  that  Church  at 
that  time,  can  we  believe  that  Justin  would  have  accepted  it  as  an 
apostolic  Memoir  of  Christ  ?  There  were  in  Justin's  time,  in  all 
probability,  some  few  Christians  who  had  known  Peter  and  Paul.  Cer 
tainly  there  were  many  who  had  known  those  who  were  acquainted 
with  the  apostles,  and  with  Mark  and  Luke.  How  could  the  Chris 
tians  everywhere,  in  the  time  of  Justin,  be  deceived  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  the  four  Gospels  ?  One  thing  seems  completely  cer 
tain — that  Justin  knew  that  these  Gospels  had  come  down  from  the 
times  of  the  apostles  as  writings  composed  by  them  and  their  com 
panions.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  many  of  the  Christians  of  his  day 
could  have  informed  him  that  all  the  Gospels  were  introduced  into 
the  Church  long  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  JPau/,  which  occurred 
about  seventy  years  before  Justin  wrote  his  first  Apology.  Would 
it  be  a  difficult  matter  now  to  ascertain,  apart  from  all  documents, 
whether  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  any  book  of  Dis 
cipline  in  the  year  1800?  We  could  ascertain  that  from  living 
testimony ;  and  although  we  would  be  informed  by  the  living  voice 
that  the  Discipline  has  been  repeatedly  changed  by  the  authority  of 
the  General  Conference,  we  would  also  learn  that  the  Articles  of 
Religion  in  it  have  always  been  the  same  from  the  organization  of 
the  Church. 

Before  the  converts  to  Christianity  were  baptized,  Justin  tells  us 

"  they  are  persuaded  and  believe  that  the  things  taught  and  said  by 

us  are  true,  and  they  profess  to  be  able  to  live  according  to  them."  4 

In  the  catechetical  instructions  given  to  the  new  converts  the  origin 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv,  xxii.  2  Apology,  sec.  15. 

8  The  Apostle  John  died  about  A.  D.  98.  4  Apology,  sec.  61. 


510  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

and  authority  of  the  Gospels  must  have  been  a  subject  of  the  deepest 
importance. 

We  have  already  cited  the  testimony  of  Tertullian — who  flourished 
Testimonies  of  at  Carthage  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century  and  in 
other  fathers  the  beginning  of  the  third—  to  the  fact  that  our  Gospels 
already  cited.  were  written  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John;  ai.d 
that  Luke's  Gospel,  from  its  first  publication,  had  been  known  in  all 
the  apostolic  Churches,  and  in  the  Churches  in  communion  with 
them,  and  that  the  same  authority  of  the  apostolic  Churches  would 
defend  the  other  Gospels.1 

We  have  also -adduced  the  testimony  of  Clement  of  Alexandria — 
who  flourished  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century  and  in  the  first 
part  of  the  third — that  he  had  made  inquiry  respecting  the  origin  of 
the  Gospels,  and  had  learned  from  the  oldest  presbyters  fhat  those 
Gospels  which  contain  the  genealogies  were  written  first ;  after  which 
he  relates  the  circumstances  under  which  he  had  learned  that  Mark 
and  John  were  written.8 

Important,  also,  is  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  to  the  fact  that  there 
were  but  four  Gospels,  those  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John,  re 
specting  the  writing  of  which  he  gives  some  particulars.3  Irenaeus 
spent  the  early  part  of  his  life  in  Asia  Minor,  was  acquainted  with 
Polycarp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  was  bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D. 
177-202.  He  evidently  knew  many  persons  who  were  acquainted 
with  the  Apostle  John,  and  his  testimony  on  this  account  is  ex- 
tremely  valuable,  especially  respecting  John's  Gospel. 

We  have  also  seen  that  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori  (about  A.  D.  160) 
the  third  Gospel  bears  the  name  of  Luke  and  the  fourth  that  of  John  ; 
and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  first  and  second  were  those  of  Matth 
ew  and  Mark.  To  these  we  must  add  the  testimony  of  the  Pe- 
shito-Syriac,  made,  doubtless,  as  early  as  A.  D.  150,  in  which  the 
four  Gospels  are  attributed  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  All 
these  witnesses,  in  combination  with  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr, 
living  so  near  the  apostolic  age,  furnish  an  incontrovertible  proof 
that  these  Gospels  came  down  from  the  apostolic  age,  and  that  they 
have  the  strongest  claims  to  be  accepted  as  the  genuine  produc 
tions  of  those  whose  names  they  bear. 

Between  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age  (about  A.  D.  97)  and  the 

Testimony    of  ^me  °^  Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  130-166)  flourished  several 

Papias  as  given    Christian  writers,  whose  works,  with  the  exception  of  a 

few  fragments,  are  lost.     Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis — 

whom  Irenaeus  and  Jerome  represent  as  a  hearer  of  John,  though 

1  Adversus  Marcioriem,  lib.  iv,  cap.  ii,  v. 

*  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xiv.         8  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  L 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  511 

according  to  the  statement  of  Eusebius  he  was  but  a  hearer  of  John 
the  presbyter,  of  Ephesus — wrote  in  five  books  "  Expositions  of  the 
Oracles  of  the  Lord."  In  a  fragment  preserved  by  Eusebius,  Papias 
states  that  John  the  presbyter,  who  was  acquainted  with  the  apos 
tles,  said  "  that  Mark,  being  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  ac 
curately  what  things  he  remembered,  not,  indeed,  in  the  order  in 
which  the  things  were  said  or  done  by  Christ ;  for  he  neither  heard 
the  Lord  nor  was  he  his  companion,  but  afterward  he  was,  as  I  said, 
ar  attendant  upon  Peter,  who  preached  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel 
as  circumstances  required,  not  making,  as  it  were,  a  systematic  ar 
rangement  of  the  Lord's  discourses.  Mark,  accordingly,  committed 
no  mistake  in  writing  some  things  just  as  he  remembered  them." 
Respecting  Matthew,  Papias  remarks :  "  Matthew  wrote  the  oracles 
in  the  Hebrew  dialect ;  every  one  explained  them  as  he  could." 

Papias  took  especial  pains  to  collect  facts  respecting  the  teachings 
of  the  apostles  from  those  who  knew  them.  "  For  if  any  one  who 
had  been  an  associate  of  the  elders  met  me  I  inquired  of  him  about 
the  statements  of  the  elders — what  Andrew,  or  Peter,  or  Philip,  or 
Thomas,  or  James,  or  John,  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  of  the  Lord's 
disciples,  said;  and  what  Aristion  and  the  presbyter  John,  disci* 
pies  of  the  Lord,  say.  For  I  did  not  think  that  books  benefitted  me 
so  much  as  what  I  derived  from  the  living  voice  of  surviving  men."  ' 

The  statement  made  by  Papias  from  John  the  presbyter,  that 
Mark  did  not  write  "in  order  the  things  that  were  said  Awronginfer- 
or  done  by  Christ,"  has  been  made  a  ground  of  inference  ^J^  ^J 
by  some 2  that  Mark's  Gospel,  in  its  present  form,  did  not  Papias. 
proceed  from  that  evangelist,  but  that  it  is  a  reconstruction  of  the 
original  work.  But  it  is  evident  that  Papias  is  speaking  of  Mark's 
Gospel  as  known  to  him  a  short  time  before  the  middle  of  the  sec 
ond  century,  which  was  demonstrably  our  present  Gospel  of  Mark. 
He  clearly  knew  nothing  of  a  remodelling  of  it.  Nor  did  Eusebius, 
nor  any  one  else  among  the  ancients.  Mark's  Gospel  is  shorter  than 
any  of  the  others;  it  contains  no  genealogy,  and  begins  with  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist.  It  may  have  been  on  these  grounds 
that  the  presbyter  John  thought  Mark  had  not  written  the  sayings 
and  doings  of  Christ  in  order.  Mark  must  have  greatly  abridged 
the  discourses  of  Christ,  and  the  accounts  of  his  actions  as  delivered 
by  Peter.  But  can  we  suppose  for  a  moment  that  Mark,  who  was  a 
companion  of  the  apostles  and  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  would  have 
written  an  account  of  Christ's  sayings  and  doings  without  observing 
any  order  ?  Can  we  imagine  a  Gospel  written  by  him  in  which  the 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxxix. 
"First  inferred  by  Schleifrmacher. 


512  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

preaching  of  the  Baptist  is  put  at  the  end,  the  crucifixion  in  the  mid 
die,  and  the  resurrection  in  the  beginning  ? 

We  have  seen  that  Papias  states  that  "  Matthew  wrote  the  oracles 
in  the  Hebrew  dialect."    From  this  Schleier- 


Schieiermach 

er's  inference  macher  concluded  that  Matthew's  Gospel  originally  con- 
from  Papias.  tained  only  the  discourses  of  Christ.  But  there  is  no 
necessity  for  limiting  ra  Aoym  (the  oracles)  to  discourses.  In  the 
New  Testament  Aoym  (oracles)  is  used  in  Acts  vii,  38  ;  Rom.  iii,  2  , 
Heb.  v,  12  ;  i  Peter  iv,  1  1,  in  the  sense  of  Scriptures,  or  divine  rev 
elations.  In  Polycarp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  '  the  phrase  "  oracles 
(ra  Aoym)  of  the  Lord  "  is  used  for  New  Testament  Scriptures  with 
out  respect  to  discourses.  In  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the 
Corinthians2  "the  oracles  (rd  Aoym)  of  God  "  are  put  in  apposition 
with  "  the  holy  Scriptures  "  of  the  Old  Testament.  Irenaeus,  bishop 
of  Lyons,  uses  the  phrase  Kvpiaica  Xayia  (oracles  of  the  Lord)  for 
the  New  Testament.3 

Sophocles  remarks  on  the  passage  in  Papias  respecting  Matthew's 
Gospel,  it  "  implies  that  when  Papias  wrote,  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
was  regarded  as  a  sacred  book."  It  would  have  been  impossible 
to  give  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour  without  historical  facts,  for  fre 
quently  the  discourses  grow  out  of  the  historical  facts. 

In  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Ebionites,  mentioned  by  Epiphanius  in 
the  last  half  of  the  fourth  century,  historical  matter  was  largely  in 
corporated.  Epiphanius  calls  it  Matthew's  Gospel  adulterated  and 
mutilated,  and  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  if  not  completely 
certain,  that  this  Gospel  and  our  Matthew  were  originally  identical. 
Epiphanius  states  that  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  commenced  in 
the  following  way  :  "  It  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  king 
of  Judea,  that  John  came  baptizing  with  the  baptism  of  repentance  in 
the  river  Jordan,"  etc.5  Hilgenfeld  well  remarks  that  "  all  Christian 
antiquity  knows  nothing  of  the  mere  collection  of  the  discourses  of 
Christ.  .  .  .  Not  a  mere  collection  of  discourses,  but  a  com 
plete  Gospel,  Papias  states,  to  have  been  written  in  Hebrew  by 
Matthew."6 

Eusebius  does  not  state  whether  Papias  made  any  remarks  re 
specting  Luke  and  John.  There  may  have  been  no  occasion  for 
Papias  to  refer  to  them.  He  does  not  say  that  Matthew  wrote  one 
Gospel  and  Mark  another;  that  is  taken  for  granted;  and  he  states 

'Sec.  7.  f  Sec.  53  ;  and  in  the  same  sense  in  sec.  19. 

1  Contra  Hsereses,  lib.  i,  cap.  viii  ;  the  Old  Testament  may  be  here  included  in 
the  phrase. 

4  Greek  Lexicon  of  the  Roman  and  Byzantine  Periods.     Boston,  1870. 
Mlseresis,  xxx,  cap.  xiii.  8  Einleitung.  pp.  456,  457. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  513 

only  the  source  of  Mark's  information,  and  the  language  in  which 
Matthew  wrote. 

The  testimony  of  Papias,  living  just  after  the  apostolic  age  and 
acquainted  with  the  companions  of  some  of  the  apostles,  is  very 
valuable. 

In  the  Epistle1  of  Pol/carp  to  the  Philippians  we  find  many  ex 
tracts  from  the  New  Testament,  and  several  that  appear  QUOtati0ns 
to  be  from  some  of  our  Gospels.  "  The  spirit  is  willing,  from  the  Gos~ 
but  the  flesh  is  weak,"  in  section  7,  is,  in  the  Greek,  the  Srpandcieii" 
exact  language  of  Matthew  xxvi,  41  and  Mark  xiv,  38.  entofRome. 
In  section  2  he  says,  "  remembering  what  the  Lord  said  when  he 
taught :  Judge  not,  that  ye  may  not  be  judged ;  Forgive,  and  it  shall 
be  forgiven  unto  you  ;  Be  ye  merciful,  that  mercy  may  be  shown  to 
you ;  With  what  measure  ye  measure,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you 
again  ;  and  that,  Blessed  are  the  poor,  and  those  who  are  persecuted 
for  righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  first 
of  these  precepts  is  the  exact  language  of  Matthew  vii,  i.  The  sec 
ond2  is  the  sense  of  Matthew  vi,  14  and  Mark  xi,  25.  The  third  is 
the  substance  of  Matthew  v,  7.  The  fourth  is  the  exact  language  of 
Luke  vi,  38,  with  the  exception  that  kv  (with)  is  omitted,  and  the  in 
dicative  is  used  in  that  Gospel.  The  last  part  of  Polycarp's  extract 
is,  for  the  most  part,  the  exact  language  of  Matthew  v,  3,  1 1.  In  sec. 
6  he  says :  "  If  therefore  we  pray  the  Lord  to  forgive  us,  we  ought 
also  to  forgive,"  which  clearly  refers  to  the  Lord's  prayer,  as  recorded 
in  Matt,  vi,  12,  and  in  Luke  xi,  4. 

In  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians,  written  not 
later  than  A.  D.  96,  we  have  several  extracts  from  the  Gospels.  In 
speaking  of  dissensions  and  severing  the  members  of  Christ,  he  says  : 
"  Remember  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus ;  for  he  said,  Woe  to  that 
man  !  better  would  it  have  been  if  he  had  not  been  born,  than  that 
he  should  offend  one  of  my  elect ,  better  would  it  be  for  him  if  a 
millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  were  drowned  in  the 
sea,  than  to  offend  one  of  my  little  ones."2  The  former  part  of  these 
extracts  of  Clement  is  from  Matthew  xxvi,  24,  respecting  Judas,  and 
the  latter  part  substantially  from  Matthew  xviii,  6.  Both  Matthew  and 
Clement  have  KaTaTTOVTi&adai  (to  be  drowned  in  the  sea) ;  Mark  and 
Luke,  in  the  parallel  passages,  have  each  a  different  word.  I  think 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Clement  took  the  word  from  Matthew, 

1  This  Epistle  was  written  not  later  than  A.  D.  115,  as  Polycarp  refers  to  a  letter 
from  Ignatius  to  him,  which  he  in  turn  had  sent  to  the  Philippians,  sec.  15  But 
the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius  did  not  occur  later  than  A.  D.  115. 

3  'A^tfvai,  to  remit,  is  used  both  in  Polycarp  and  in  the  Gospel.  *  Sec.  46. 

VOL.  I. — 33 


514  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

as  it  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  except  twice  in 
Matthew. 

In  another  place  he  says :  "  Especially  remembering  the  words  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  which  he  spoke  when  he  was  teaching  clemency  and 
long-suffering ;  for  thus  he  said :  "  Be  ye  merciful,  that  ye  may  ob 
tain  mercy ;  Forgive,  that  it  may  be  forgiven  you ;  As  ye  do  shall  il 
be  done  to  you  ;  As  ye  gi-  e,  so  shall  it  be  given  to  you  ;  As  ye  judge, 
so  shall  it  be  judged  for  you ;  As  ye  show  kindness,  so  shall  kind 
ness  be  shown  to  you  ;  With  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  meas  • 
ured  to  you.'"1  These  precepts  are  found  either  literally  or  sub 
stantially  in  the  Gospels,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Clement 
quoted  them  from  memory,  blending  together  what  is  said  by  the 
evangelists. 

Clement  quotes,  in  some  instances,  the  Old  Testament  just  as  in 
accurately  as  he  does  the  Gospels.  Immediately  preceding  these 
extracts  he  quotes  Jeremiah,  prefacing  the  extract  with,  "  The  Holy 
Spirit  says,"  "  Let  not  the  wise  man  glory  in  his  wisdom,  nor  the  strong 
man  in  his  strength,  nor  the  rich  man  in  his  riches;  but  he  that, 
glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord,  to  seek  him  and  to  do  judgment 
and  righteousness." 2  The  latter  half  of  this  quotation  is  wrongly  given, 
for  Jeremiah's  language  is :  "  But  let  him  who  glorieth  glory  in  this, 
to  understand  and  to  know  that  I  am  the  Lord,  who  doeth  (showeth) 
mercy,  and  judgment,  and  justice  upon  the  earth  :  because  in  these 
things  is  my  delight,  saith  the  Lord."  3  In  quoting  Ezekiel,  he  says, 
the  Almighty  declared  with  an  oath  :  "  For  as  I  live,  saith  the  Lord, 
I  do  not  wish  the  death  of  the  sinner  as  (his)  repentance."4  But 
the  last  clause  of  it  in  Ezekiel  is :  "  That  the  wicked  turn  from  his 
way  and  live."  6  The  beautiful  passage  6  on  the  omnipresence  of 
God  he  spoils  by  the  incorrect  way  in  which  he  quotes  it.  In  one 
place  he  blends  together  two  passages  from  two  different  prophets. 
In  the  face  of  these  facts,  the  statement  of  Renan,  that  the  pas 
sages  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  could  not  have  been  taken  from  our 
Gospels  because  they  do  not  exactly  agree  with  them,  is  utterly 
unfounded,  and  could  have  sprung  only  from  ignorance  or  the  went 
of  candour. 

The  language  of  Polycarp  and  Clement  implies  that  the  Churches 
to  which  they  wrote  possessed  the  same  teachings  of  Christ  that 
they  themselves  had.  How  otherwise  could  these*  fathers  admonish 
the  Churches  addressed,  by  exhorting  them  to  "  remember "  the 
words  of  Christ?  But  the  very  supposition  that  the  Churches  every- 

1  Sec.  13.  2  Ibid 

8  Septuagint,  Jer.  ix,  23,  24.     This  version  was  used  by  the  early  Church. 
4  Sec.  8.  6  xxxiii,  u.  6  Psa.  cxxxix,  7-10,  in  sec.  28. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  515 

where  had  the  same  precepts  of  Christ  implies  that  they  were  con 
tained  in  a  common  written  form,  i.  e.,  in  the  Gospels. 

In  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  written  in  all  probability  in  the  last 
part  of  the  first  century,  we  find  an  evident  reference  Tegtlmonles  of 
to  at  least  one  of  our  Gospels,  in  the  language  that  Je-  Barnabas  and 
sus  Christ  "  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners, 
to  repentance."  In  Matt,  ix,  13  and  Mark  ii,  17  this  passage  is  found 
without  the  addition  of  the  words  "  to  repentance,"  which,  how 
ever,  are  added  in  Luke  v,  32.  But  an  evident  quotation  of  Matt. 
xxii,  14  occurs  in  section  4  of  this  Epistle.  "  Let  us  take  heed,  there 
fore,  lest  by  chance  we  may  be  found,  as  it  is  written,  Many  are 
called,  but  few  are  chosen."  '  Volkmar,  Strauss,  and  Hilgenfeld 
contend  that  the  words  in  Barnabas  were  not  taken  from  Matthew,  but 
from  the  apocryphal  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  where  it  is  said,  "  Many 
have  been  created,  but  few  will  be  saved."  In  Matthew  the  declara 
tion,"  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen,"  stands  at  the  close  of  the 
parable  of  the  king  who  made  a  marriage  for  his  son.  The  invited 
guests  having  rejected  the  invitation,  the  king  sent  and  collected  a 
miscellaneous  party,  among  whom  was  a  man  without  a  wedding  gar 
ment,  who  was  cast  out.  Here  the  words  are  exceedingly  appro 
priate.  The  language  which  Barnabas  uses  immediately  preceding 
the  quotation  from  Matthew  indicates  that  he  had  that  Gospel  in  his 
mind  :  "  Let  us  take  heed  lest,  relying  upon  the  fact  that  we  are 
called,  we  may  fall  asleep  in  our  sins,  and  the  wicked  prince,  obtain 
ing  the  mastery  over  us,  may  shut  us  out  from  the  kingdom  of  the 
Lord.  Still  also  think  of  that  point,  my  brethren,  when  ye  see  that- 
after  such  great  signs  and  wonders  have  been  done  in  Israel 
they  have  been  thus  forsaken."  Then  follow  the  words  under  con 
sideration  :  "  Let  us  take  heed  lest  we  may  be  found,  as  it  is  written, 
Many  (are)  called,  but  few  (are)  chosen."  The  whole  tenor  of  the 
section  is,  that  we  must  devote  ourselves  as  Christians  wholly  to  God. 
What  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  ? 

It  cannot  be  doubted  for  a  moment  that  the  words  in  Barnabas  un 
der  discussion  came  from  Matthew.  But  did  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
forget  the  source  of  the  words,  and,  thinking  that  they  belonged  to 


1  The  Greek  of  Barnabas  is,  Ilpoffe^cj^ev  ^TTOTC,  wf  ytypanrat,  TroAAoZ  K^ijTol,  6/W- 
>ot  6e  e/cAe/cro/  evpedupev.  Matthew  has,  IIoAAoi  elatv  n%.7]Tot,  bMyot  Se  c/cAexro/,  ex 
actly  the  same  as  Barnabas,  except  that  the  latter  omits  eiatv  (are),  which  is  not  quite 
suitable  in  the  quotation.  In  section  16  in  Barnabas  there  is  a  reference  to  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem  :  "  And  still  I  will  speak  to  you  concerning  the  temple,  how 
the  miserable  men,  being  deceived,  trusted  in  the  house,  and  not  in  their  God,"  etc. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  in  several  places  quotes  the  Epistle  as  that  of  Barnabas.  Il 
must,  indeed,  have  come  down  from  the  first  century.  Hilgenfeld  places  it  about 
A.  D.  97.  Einleitung,  p.  38. 


51G  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  did  he  add,  as  it  is  written  ?  How  could 
he  forget  the  connection  in  which  the  words  stand  in  Matthew?  Did 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  attribute  more  authority  to  the  apocryphal 
Book  of  Ezra  1  than  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  ?  Why  should  he  not 
have  quoted  that  Gospel  with  the  formula  with  which  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  quoted?  We  have  already  seen  that 
'  Polycarp,  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  quotes  writings  oi 
Paul  as  "  holy  Scripture."  Barnabas  appears  also  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  Gospel  of  John.  He  speaks  of  "Abraham's 
having  foreseen  in  spirit  the  Son,"  in  reference  to  John  viii,  56 : 
"  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,"  etc.  There  are  some  other  pas 
sages  that  may  have  been  taken  from  John ;  for  example,  that  in 
which  he  represents  the  brazen  serpent  set  up  in  the  wilderness  as  a 
type  of  Christ.  The  phrase,  "  the  only  and  true  God,"  seems  to  be 
taken  from  John  xvii,  3. 

In  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  written  (if  genuine)  not  later  than 

The  passages  A-  D>  I][5>  there  are  several  passages  evidently  taken 
quoted  by  ig-  from  the  Gospels.  But  as  these  Epistles  have  been 
thought  by  many  to  have  been  interpolated,  we  content 
ourselves  with  a  few  references  to  some  of  our  Gospels  found  in  two 
of  the  three  undoubtedly  genuine  and  uncorrupted  Epistles — to  Poly- 
carp,  to  the  Ephesians,  and  to  the  Romans — published  by  Cureton 
from  a  very  ancient  Syriac  MS.  from  the  Nitrian  desert :  "  Be  wise 
as  the  serpent  in  every  thing,  and  innocent  as  the  dove,"  8  etc.,  found 
only  in  Matthew  x,  16.  "  The  bread  of  God  I  seek,  which  is  the  flesh 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  blood  I  seek,  a  drink  which  is  love  incor 
ruptible."5  With  this  compare  John  vi,  54,  55:  "Whoso  eateth 
my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life ;  .  .  .  For  my  flesh 
is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed." 

In  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  one  of  the  finest  remains  of  Christian 
The  Epistle  to  antiquity,  in  which  the  Christian  life  is  described  with 
Diognetus.  great  truthfulness  and  beauty,  and  which  must  have 
been  written  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  century  or  in  the  beginning 
of  the  second,  there  are  several  passages  which  seem  to  refer  to  ex 
pressions  of  Christ  in  some  of  our  Gospels.  "  The  Christians  hold 
together  (preserve)  the  world."  With  this  compare  the  passage, 
"  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,"  found  only  in  Matt,  v,  13.  The  au 
thor  of  the  Epistle  tells  us  that  Christ  has  commanded  us  "  not  to  be 
anxious  about  raiment  and  food."  With  this  compare  Matt,  vi,  25: 
"Be  not  anxious  about  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  what  ye  shall 

1  The  time  of  the  composition  of  Fourth  Ezra  is  uncertain  ;  it  was  probably 
written  some  years  before  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 

8  Epistle  to  Polycarp.  3  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  517 

drink ;  nor  yet  for  your  body,  what  ye  shall  put  on.  Is  not  the  life 
more  than  meat,  and  the  body  than  raiment?"  Similar  is  Luke 
xii,  22,  23.  In  the  Epistle  and  in  these  two  Gospels  the  same  word, 
lifp^ivav,  is  used  to  express  anxious  thought ;  rpo^,  meat,  is  the  word 
here  employed  in  the  Epistle  in  common  with  these  two  Gospels. 
For  "  raiment,"  evdvais  is  used  in  the  Epistle,  and  evdvpa,  in  the  Gos 
pels.  In  section  4  he  speaks  of  the  Jews  forbidding  any  thing  good  to 
be  done  on  the  Sabbath  day,  evidently  with  reference  to  Matt,  xii,  12. 
"  To  whom  he  (God)  sent  his  only  begotten  Son,"  rov  vidv  TOV  /zovo- 
yev*)  —here  is  evidently  a  reference  to  the  writings  of  the  Apostle 
John.  For  he  alone  of  the  New  Testament  writers  calls  Christ  "  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God,"  and  he  does  this  four  times  in  his  Gospel 
and  once  in  his  First  Epistle."1  Christians  "are  not  of  the  world," 
the  exact  phrase  that  is  found  in  John  xvii,  16. 

In  the  last  two  sections  of  this  Epistle  Christ  is  called  the  Logos  (or 
Word)  who  has  appeared  to  men,  with  evident  reference  to  John. 
The  Gospels  are  also  mentioned  in  the  following  passage ;  "  The  fear 
of  the  law  is  celebrated,  and  the  grace  of  the  prophets  is  known,  and 
the  faith  of  the  Gospels  is  established,  and  the  tradition  of  the  apos 
tles  is  kept,  and  the  grace  of  the  Church  leaps."  It  must,  however, 
be  observed  that  a  doubt  has  been  raised  respecting  the  genuineness 
of  these  last  two  sections. 

In  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  a  small  Greek  work  be 
longing  to  the  close  of  the  first  century,  or  to  the  very  beginning  of 
the  second,  we  find  a  considerable  number  of  references  to  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  some  to  that  of  Luke.  The  Lord's  prayer 
is  the  exact  form  of  that  in  Matthew,  except  "debt  "  for  "debts." 
It  contains,  however,  a  doxology  wanting  in  the  best  texts  of  Matth 
ew.  The  phrase,  "To  compel  one  to  go  a  mile"  (Matt,  v,  41),  is 
found  in  this  work.  The  verb  dyyapevo),  to  compel,  is  found  in  the 
New  Testament  only  in  this  passage  and  in  Matt,  xxvii,  32,  and 
in  Mark  xv,  21,  and  outside  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  exceedingly 
rare.  There  are  in  the  work  references  also  to  Luke  vi,  28,  30.  It 
also  refers,  manifestly,  to  a  written  Gospel:  "As  the  Lord  com 
manded  in  his  Gospel."  "As  ye  have  (it)  in  the  Gospel."  "As  ye 
have  (them)  in  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord." 

1  Whatever  establishes  the  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John  establishes 
that  of  the  Gospel  of  John  also,  for  they  manifestly  had  the  same  author. 


518  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  CELSUS  TO  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

GOSPELS. 

A  LITTLE  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,1  probably 
"•  between  A.  D.  160  and  170,  Celsus,  a  heathen  philosopher,  at 
tacked  Christianity  with  great  acuteness  and  virulence,  in  a  work 
which  he  entitled,  Adyof  AA^flffc  (A  True  Discourse).  The  cele 
brated  Christian  philosopher,  Origen,  about  A.  D.  247,  wrote  a  full 
reply  to  this  work  in  eight  books,  from  which  we  derive  our  knowl 
edge  of  the  work  of  Celsus,  unfortunately  lost. 

The  testimony  of  such  a  man  respecting  the  books  considered  sa 
cred  by  the  Christians  is  very  valuable.  And  it  is  highly  satisfactory 
to  find  that  Celsus  was  acquainted  with  our  Gospels,  and  regarded 
them  as  constituting,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  the  authentic 
history  of  Jesus  Christ ;  he  himself  says,  that  they  were  written  by 
Christ's  disciples. 

Origen  remarks,  that  Celsus  made  extracts  from  the  history  in 
Proof  that  eel-  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  respecting  Jesus'  going 

iZ  hanbeffo^  down  into  EgyP^8  and  that  he  also  took  from  this  evangel- 
Gospels,  ist,  and  perhaps  from  the  other  Gospels,  the  statement 
that  a  dove  descended  upon  Christ  when  he  was  baptized  by  John.' 
Celsus  also  referred  to  the  star  that  appeared  at  the  birth  of  Christ, 
and  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.4 
He  commented  on  the  statement,  found  only  in  Matthew,  that  an 
angel  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  sepulchre  of  Christ.6  He  refers 
to  Matt,  xxvi,  39  in  these  words :  "  O  Father,  if  it  be  possible  that 
this  cup  may  pass  by ; " "  also  to  the  darkness  and  earthquake 7  that 
occurred  at  Christ's  death,  the  latter  circumstance  found  in  Matthew 
only  (xxvii,  51). 

In  the  following  passage  he  refers  to  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 

1  The  work,  as  is  evident  from  certain  passages,  was  written  during  a  persecution 
of  the  Christians ;  and,  accordingly,  it  is  placed  by  Neander  in  the  reign  of  Marcus 
Aurelius  (A.  D.  161-180);  by  Lardner,  about  A.  D.  176.  Keim,  who  has  attempted 
a  restoration  of  the  work,  places  it  A.  D.  178;  Gieseler,  about  A.  D.  150.  Origen 
says  that  Celsus  lived  in  the  time  of  Hadrian  (A.  D.  117-138),  and  later.  He  speaks 
of  him,  in  the  preface  to  his  work,  as  being  long  since  dead  (fjdjj  KCU  nafau 

9  Contra  Celsum,  i,  38.  •  Ibid.,  i,  40.  *  Ibid. 

•  Ibid.,  v,  58.  •  Ibid.,  ii,  24.  '  Ibid.,  ii  59- 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  519 

Luke  :  '  Tnose  who  wrote  the  genealogies  dared  to  assert  that  Jesus 
descended  from  the  first  man  and  from  the  Jewish  kings."1  It  is 
Luke  that  carries  back  the  genealogy  of  Christ  to  the  first  man 
(chap,  iii,  38),  and  Matthew  who  traces  his  descent  from  King  David 
through  the  Jewish  kings  (chap,  i,  i).  Celsus  also  refers  to  the  mi 
raculous  conception  of  Christ,2  related  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  He 
notices  the  precept,3  "  Unto  him  that  smiteth  thee  on  the  one  cheek 
offer  also  the  other  "  (Luke  vi,  29  ;  Matt,  v,  39) ;  also,  that  "  no  man 
can  serve  two  roasters,"  or,  as  he  represents  it,  "  the  same  man  cannot 
serve  several  masters,"4  in  reference  to  Matt,  vi,  24,  Luke  xvi,  13. 

It  is  also  clear  that  Celsus  had  before  him  John's  Gospel,  as  he 
asks,  "What  kind  of  fluid  was  it  that  flowed  from  the  Quotatlong 
body  (of  Christ)  when  he  was  crucified  ?  Was  it  such  as  from  John  in 
flows  from  the  blessed  gods  ?  " 6  in  reference  to  John  c 
xix,  34.  He  also  asks  of  Christ,  "  What  honourable  or  wonderful 
thing  in  deed  or  word  hast  thou  performed,  although  they  called 
upon  thee  in  the  temple  to  furnish  some  clear  proof  that  thou  wast 
the  Son  of  God  ?  "  This  obviously  refers  to  John  x,  23,  24 :  "  And 
Jesus  walked  in  the  temple  in  Solomon's  porch.  Then  came  the 
Jews  round  about  him,  and  said  unto  him,  How  long  dost  thou  make 
us  to  doubt?  If  thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly."  Origen  re 
marks  that  Celsus  also  "quoted  from  the  Gospel,  that  when  he 
(Christ)  had  risen  from  the  dead  he  showed  the  signs  of  his  punish 
ment,  and  his  hands  as  they  had  been  pierced."  '  This  manifestly  re 
fers  to  John  xx,  25-27.  Origen  observes  that  Celsus,  quoting  the 
Gospel,  reproaches  Jesus  with  the  vinegar  and  gall — "That  he  was 
exceedingly  eager  to  drink,  and  did  not  endure  his  thirst  as  a  com 
mon  man  often  endures  it."'  This  evidently  refers  to  John  xix,  28, 
where  our  Saviour  says,  "  I  thirst."  None  of  the  other  evangelists 
make  any  mention  of  his  being  thirsty.  Matthew  uses  "  wine  mingled 
with  gall ;  "  the  other  evangelists  have  "  vinegar."  Celsus  evidently 
combined  the  accounts  of  several  evangelists. 

Celsus  states,  "  Some  narrate  that  two  angels  came  to  the  sep 
ulchre  of  Jesus;  others  narrate  one."'  On  which  Origen  remarks, 
"  He  had  observed,  I  think,  that  one  angel  is  mentioned  by  Matthew 
and  Mark,  but  two  by  Luke  and  John."  It  seems  very  probable 
from  this  passage  that  Celsus  had  before  him  all  our  Gospels.  He 
also  commented  on  the  passage,  "It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God"  10  (Matthew  xix,  24  ;  Mark  x,  25  ;  Luke  xviii,  25). 

1  Contra  Celsum,  ii,  32.  *  Ibid.,  i,  32.        "  Ibid.,  vii,  25.        *  Ibid.,  viii,  2,  3. 

8  Ibid..  11,36.  fl  Ibid.,  i,  67.          '  Ibid.,  ii,  59.  •  Ibid.,  11,  37. 

•  Ibid.,  v,  56.  10Ibid.,  vi,  16. 


520  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

It  is  certain  that  Celsus  was  acquainted  with  Matthew,  Luke  and 
John,  and  it  is  highly  probable  from  his  work  that  he  was  acquainted 
with  Mark.  As  the  four  Gospels  in  the  age  of  Celsus  were  always 
associated  together,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  was  familiar  with  this 
Gospel. 

Celsus  not  only  refers  to  these  Gospels  as  having  authority  in  the 
ceisus  attrib-  Church,  and  as  the  source  for  the  history  of  Christ,  but 
p^tcTchSs  he  attributes  them  to  the  disciples  of  Christ.  "Being 
disciples.  able,"  says  he,  "  to  say  many  things  and  true  concerning 

the  affairs  of  Jesus,  and  not  similar  to  those  written  by  the  disciples  of 
Jesus,  I  willingly  omic  them."  !  It  is  evident  that  he  means,  by  "the 
disciples  of  Jesus,"  the  apostles  and  their  companions;  and,  indeed, 
he  seems  to  have  included  Mark  and  Luke  under  the  term  disciples, 
perhaps  because  it  was  believed  that  they  wrote  under  the  guidance 
of  Peter  and  Paul.  Celsus  nowhere  expresses  a  doubt  that  the  Gos 
pels  were  written  by  those  whose  names  they  bear.  He  everywhere 
supposes  that  they  proceeded  from  those  intimately  connected  with 
Christ. 

Again,  he  says  that  "  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  having  nothing  to 
urge  in  a  very  evident  matter,  hit  upon  this — the  assertion  that  he 
foreknew  all  things."  3  He  here  refers  to  the  disciples  having  aban 
doned  Christ  when  he  was  arrested,  and  the  predictions  of  Christ  in 
the  Gospels  that  they  would  do  this.  Celsus  here  assumes  that  the 
accounts  in  our  Gospels  came  from  the  disciples.  He  further  says, 
that  "  the  disciples  wrote  such  things  concerning  Jesus  as  an  excuse 
for  what  happened  to  him."5 

The  Jew  in  Celsus  closes  his  arguments  with  these  words  :  "  These 
things,  then,  (we  have  produced)  against  you  from  your  own  writ 
ings,  on  account  of  which  we  need  no  other  witness ;  for  you  fall  by 
your  own  hands. >M  It  is  very  evident  from  this  that  our  Gospels 
were  regarded  as  the  fundamental  documents  of  Christianity,  the 
overthrow  of  which  would  be  the  subversion  of  Christianity  itself. 
If  Celsus  could  have  seen  any  way  in  which  he  could  attack  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  Gospels  he  certainly  would  not  have  failed  to 
do  it,  as  it  would  have  given  him  the  greatest  advantage  in  attacking 
the  history  of  Christ,  and  he  shows  himself  everywhere  ready  to  take 
any  advantage  in  the  discussion  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  From 
all  this  it  is  evident  that  the  genuineness  of  our  Gospels  was  so 

1  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that,  if  Celsus  could  have  refuted  the  apostles  on  any 
points,  be  would  have  refrained  from  doing  it.  Origen  regards  it  as  an  "  oratorical 
trick  "  ii,  13).  aii,  15.  *ii,  16. 

4  TaOra  (ikv  ovv  tyzZv  IK  ran/  vfierepuv  trvyypa^drQi',  e$'  olf  ovtevbf  dAAov  udpTvpof 
'  avroi  yap  iavrolg  TrepiTUTrrere. — ii,  74. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  521 

universally  acknowledged,  that  it  would  have  been  considered  the 
greatest  folly  to  question  it. 

Celsus  alleges  that  some  of  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  like  those 
'vho  through  a  drunken  fit  lay  hands  on  themselves,  have  changed  the 
original  written  form  of  the  Gospels  three  and  four  times,  and  oftener, 
and  moulded  it  so  that  they  might  ward  off  objections.  To  which 
Origen  answers:  "I  do  not  know  of  any  others  who  have  changed 
the  Gospel  except  the  followers  of  Marcion,  of  Valentinus,  and,  I 
think,  those  of  Lucan."1 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HERETICS    OF    THE    SECOND  CEN 
TURY   TO  OUR  FOUR  GOSPELS. 

• 

THE    CLEMENTINE    HOMILIES. 

IS  heretical  work,  written  by  a  philosophically-educated  man, 
at  Rome,  in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  (A.  D.  i6i-i8o),a 
sets  forth  Ebionistic  views  of  Christ.  The  author  represents  him 
self  as  Clement,  who  was  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  last  part  of  the 
first  century.  He  visits  the  East,  where  he  makes  the  acquaintance 
of  the  Apostle  Peter,  by  whom  he  is  converted  to  Christianity. 
Peter,  accordingly,  is  the  hero  of  the  book,  and  Paul,  without  being 
directly  named,  is  depreciated.  It  consists  of  twenty  homilies.  It 
contains  numerous  extracts  from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  some 
from  that  of  Luke,  several  from  that  of  Mark,  and  some  from  the 
Gospel  of  John. 

As  a  specimen  of  Matthew,  we  find  :  "  For  he  (our  Lord)  said  thus  . 
*  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  not 
pass  from  the  law.'  "  From  Luke  we  have  the  following :  "  For  the 
Master  himself,  when  he  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  prayed  to  his  Father 
to  forgive  his  murderers  their  sin,  saying, '  Father,  forgive  them  their 
sins,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do.'  "  '  In  the  statement  that  Christ 
was  tempted  by  the  devil  forty  days,6  there  is  a  reference  to  Luke  iv,  2 
and  Mark  i,  13  ;  and  in  the  passage  in  which  Christ  said,  "  Hear, 
Israel ;  the  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord,"  *  we  have  a  clear  reference 
to  Mark  xii,  29.  The  principal  passage  from  the  Gospel  of  John  is 
the  following  :  "  Whence  our  Master,  when  they  asked  him  concern- 

1  ii,  27.  *  This  is  the  date  assigned  by  Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung,  p.  43. 

'Epistle  of  Peter  to  James  ii.  *  Clementine  Homilies,  xi^  2O. 

'Homily,  xix,  2.  'Ibid.,  iii,  57. 


523  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

ing  the  man  who  was  blind  from  his  birth  and  had  recovered  his  sighfc 
from  hirn — Did  this  man  sin  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born  blind?  — 
he  answered,  Neither  has  this  one  sinned  nor  his  parents,  but  that 
through  him  the  power  of  God  might  be  manifested,  healing  the  sins 
of  ignorance." '  There  is  no  possibility  of  mistaking  here  the  refer 
ence  to  the  ninth  chapter  of  John's  Gospel. 

Hilgenfeld2  acknowledges  that  the  Clementine  Homilies  make  use 
of  our  four  Gospels,  though  he  thinks  that  one  apocryphal  Gospel, 
at  least,  is  also  used,  which  is  very  probable,  though  it  is  very  clear 
that  our  four  Gospels  are  the  principal  sources  from  which  the  au 
thor  derives  the  teachings  of  Christ. 

THE   TESTIMONY    OF   VALENTINUS   AND    HIS    FOLLOWERS. 

This  distinguished  heretic — a  native  of  Egypt,  who,  according 
from  to  Irenaeus,  made  his  appearance  in  Rome  in  the  time 
of  Blsh°P  Hyginus,  about  A.  D.  140— flourished  in  the 
fathers.  time  of  Pius,  and  remained  till  the  time  of  Anicetus  * 

(about  A.  D.  157).  He  died  about  A.  D.  160  in  Cyprus.  Irenaeus4 
shows  how  the  Valentinians  (with  whom  he  doubtless  includes  the 
head  of  the  school,  Valentinus)  attempted  to  bring  the  first  chapter 
of  John's  Gospel  into  harmony  with  their  system.  He  represents 
them  beginning  as  follows:  "  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  wishing 
to  speak  of  the  genesis  of  all  things,  predicates,"  etc. 

In  the  Philosophoumena,  or  Refutation  of  All  Heresies,  a  work  of 
Hippolytus,  belonging  to  the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  we  have 
an  account  of  the  system  of  Valentinus,  in  which  he  says  :  "  There 
fore  all  the  prophets  and  the  law  spoke  from  the  Demiurgus,  a  fool 
ish  god,  themselves  fools,  knowing  nothing;  for  this  reason  the 
Saviour  says,  All  those  who  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  rob 
bers,"  5  almost  the  exact  words  of  John  x,  8.  Tischendorf,  in  his 
eighth  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  adopts  the  reading  : 
"All  who  came  are  thieves  and  robbers."  But  Tregelles  gives  in 
his  critical  edition,  "  All  who  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  rob 
bers;  "  and  this  is  supported,  among  other  authorities,  substantially 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria  6  (about  A.  D.  200).  Valentinus  also 
made  use  of  Luke's  Gospel.  "Jesus,"  says  he,  "was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  according  to  that  which  has  been  said:  ' The  Holy 

1  Homily,  xix,  22.  A  complete  edition  of  the  Homilies  was  published  by  Dressel, 
Gottingen,  1853.  'Einleitung,  p.  43.  "Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  xi. 

4AdversusHaeresis,  lib.i,cap.viii,5.        •  Philosophoumena,  lib.  vi,  35,  Paris  ed.,  1860. 

*"  All  who  [were]  before  the  coming  of  the  Lord  are  thieves  and  robbers." — Stro- 
mata,  lib.  i,  cap.  xvii.  Valentinus  in  the  Pistis  Sophia,  adjudged  to  him,  uses 
John  iv. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  523 

Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,'  [the  Spirit  is  (the)  Wisdom,]  *  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee:'  the  Highest  is  the 
Demiurgus :  '  wherefore  that  which  is  born  of  thee  ihall  be  called 
holy' " 1  It  is  very  clear  that  here  we  have  reference  to  Luke  i,  35. 
Gieseler  observes:  "It  is  remarkable  that  Valentinus  not  only  re 
ceived  the  New  Testament,  but  made  constant  allegorical  use  of  it 
in  his  system." a  Tertullian  remarks  : 3  "  For  if  Valentinus  is  seen  *  to 
use  the  entire  instrument  (New  Testament)  with  an  intellect  not  less 
acute  than  that  of  Marcion,  he  did  violence  to  the  truth.  .  .  .  Mar- 
cion  made  havoc  of  the  Scriptures;  but  Valentinus  spared  them." 

Respecting  the  source  from  which  the  early  Christian  writers  ob 
tained  their  knowledge  of  the  system  of  Valentinus  him-  Sources  of  our 
self,  and  his  expositions  of  Scripture,  it  must  be  borne  in  knowledge  of 
mind  that  this  distinguished  heretic  wrote  hymns,  dis-  Valen 
courses,  and  letters,  some  of  which  are  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alex 
andria.  Irenaeus  tells  us  that  he  met  with  the  memoirs  of  some  of 
those  who  called  themselves  disciples  of  Valentinus,  and  with  some 
of  these  disciples  themselves,  whose  views  he  learned.  Many  of 
these  men  were  taught  by  Valentinus  himself.  As  he  had  hardly  been 
dead  twenty  years  when  Irenaeus  wrote,  they  were  fully  compe 
tent  to  give  the  doctrines  of  their  master.  Irenaeus  6  seems  to  have 
derived  his  account  of  the  doctrines  of  Valentinus  and  his  disciples 
chiefly  from  Ptolemaeus,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  men  of  the 
school.  This  eminent  Valentinian  8  quotes  John  i,  3  :  "  All  things 
were  made  by  him  (the  Saviour),  and  without  him  nothing  was 
made;"  which  he  refers  to  an  "apostle."  He  also  quotes  a  part 
of  Matt,  xii,  25,  with  the  remark,  "  the  Saviour  said." 

Heracleon,  whom  Clement  of  Alexandria  calls  "  the  most  distin 
guished  man  of  the  school  of  Valentinus," 7  wrote  a  Com-  Testlmon  of 
mentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  fragments  of  which  are  Heracleon,  a 
introduced  into  Origen's  Commentary  on  that  book. 
Heracleon  was  compelled  to  resort  to  forced  expositions  to  bring 
the  Gospel  into  harmony  with  his  system,  and  nothing  but  the  apos 
tolic  origin  of  that  Gospel  could  have  induced  him  to  comment  on 
it,  He  appears  to  have  attributed  the  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  John ; 
for  Origen"  remarks,  that  "  he  affirmed  that  the  words, '  No  man  hath 

1  Philosophoumena,  lib.  vi,  35.  'Church  History,  vol.  i,  p.  134. 

*  De  Prsescrip.,  cap.  xxxviii. 

4  Videtur  (is  seen)  has  this  meaning  in  Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  iv,  cap.  ii ;  Ad- 
rersus  Praxeam,  cap.  xxix ;  Apologetics,  cap.  xix,  etc. 
6  See  the  Prooimion  to  his  First  Book  against  Haereses, 

•  Epistle  to  Flora,  in  Epiphanius,  Haeresis  xxxiii,  3.         f  Stromata,  lib.  iv,  cap.  9, 
1  Tom.  vi,  2. 


524  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

seen  God  at  any  time,'  and  those  which  follow,  were  not  spoken  by 
the  Disciple  but  by  the  Baptist."  Clement  of  Alexandria  '  speaks 
of  Heracleon's  Commentary  on  Luke  xii,  n,  12,  from  which  it  would 
appear  that  he  wrote  a  Commentary  on  that  Gospel  also.  This 
eminent  Valentinian  flourished,  it  seems,  between  A.  D.  150  and  180. 
and  his  Commentary  was  probably  written  some  time  in  160-180: 
for  Origen  states3  that  he  was  said  to  be  an  acquaintance  (}T>o)(H- 
fio$)  of  Valentinus  (who  died  about  A.  D.  160)  ;  and  Irenseus,  in 
his  Second  Book  8  against  Haereses,  written  about  A.  D.  180  or  ear 
lier,  makes  mention  of  him.  It  is  clear  from  passages  in  Irenaeus 
that  the  Valentinians  used  our  four  Gospels,  along  with  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  Valentinus  himself  has  been  seen  mak 
ing  use  of  both  Luke  and  John ;  and  it  is  clear  from  the  language  of 
the  early  fathers  that  he  received  also  the  writings  of  the  other  two 
evangelists. 

THE    TESTIMONY   OF    MARCION. 

Marcion,  a  native  of  Sinope,  in  Pontus,  another  distinguished 
heretic  of  the  early  Church,  made  his  appearance  about  A.  D.  138 
or  140,  and  inculcated  his  strange  system,  of  which  the  fundamental 
idea  was,  that  the  Author  of  creation,  who  was  also  the  Author  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  is  a  different  Being  from  that  God  who  is  re 
vealed  by  Christ ;  that  the  former  is  the  Author  of  an  evil  system, 
while  the  God  of  Christ  and  Christianity  is  the  Good  Being.  He, 
The  teaching  accordingly,  rejected  the  Old  Testament  and  a  large 
of  Marcion.  portion  of  the  New.  Irenaeus  remarks  of  him,  that  he 
taught,  that  "  From  that  Father,  who  is  superior  to  the  God  who 
is  the  maker  of  the  world,  Jesus  having  come  into  Judea  in  the 
times  of  Pontius  Pilate,  the  governor,  who  was  procurator  of  Tibe 
rius  Caesar,  he  manifested  himself  in  the  form  of  a  man  to  those  who 
were  in  Judea,  abolishing  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  all  the 
works  of  that  God  who  made  the  world,  whom  he  also  called  Cos- 
mocrator,  (world-ruler).  Besides  abridging  that  Gospel  which  is  ac 
cording  to  Luke,  and  removing  from  it  all  the  passages  concerning 
the  generation  of  the  Lord,  and  removing  also  much  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  discourses  in  which  Jesus  is  very  clearly  described  as 
declaring  his  Father  to  be  the  creator  of  this  universe,  Marcion  per 
suaded  his  disciples  that  he  was  more  veracious  than  those  apostles 
who  delivered  the  Gospel.  In  a  similar  manner  he  mutilated  the 
Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  taking  away  whatever  was  clearly  said 
by  the  apostle  concerning  the  God  who  made  the  world — since  he  is 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — and  removing  whatever  the 

1  Stromata,  lib.  iv,  cap.  9.  *  In  Joan,  torn,  ii,  8.  '  Cap.  iv.  I. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  525 

apostle  quoted  and  taught  from  the  prophecies  that  predict  the  com- 
ing  of  the  Lord."1 

Marcion  cut  off  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and  com 
menced  his  Gospel  with  the  words  :  "In  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tibe 
rias  Caesar."  He  did  not,  however,  after  this  beginning,  follow  Luke 
closely,  but  omitted  some  things  and  added  others.2  This  Gospel  of 
Luke  (thus  abridged),  and  ten  Epistles  of  Paul  (more  or  less  muti 
lated),  constituted  his  sole  canon  of  Scripture.3  That  Marcion 's 
Gospel  was  an  abridgment  of  that  of  Luke,  and,  accordingly,  that 
the  latter  is  the  original,  is  now  conceded  by  rationalistic  critics,4 
though  boldly  denied  by  some  of  them  until  a  comparatively  recent 
date. 

Here  the  question  arises,  Did  Marcion  know  any  thing  of  the  other 
Gospels  of  our  canon,  and  if  he  did,  what  was  his  opin-   Mansion's 
ion  of  them?    Tertullian  remarks  that  Marcion,  " having  gj"5jj*ijjf 
found  that  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  censures   pels, 
even  the  apostles  themselves  because  they  did  not  walk  uprightly 
according  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  he  at  the  same  time 
accuses  certain  false  apostles  of  perverting  the  truth  of  the  Gospel, 
he   (Marcion)    strives   to   overturn   the  authority  of  those   Gospels 
which  are  theirs  (propria),  and  are  published  under  the  name  of 
apostles,  or  also  of  apostolic  men,  that  he,  indeed,  may  confer  upon 
his  own  the  credit  which  he  takes  from  them.'"     From  this  it  ap 
pears  that  Marcion  regarded  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,"  and 
John,  to  which  the  language  of  Tertullian  applies,  as  having  been 
written  by  men  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudice.     But  since 
Luke  was  the  companion  of  Paul,  who  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gen 
tiles,  and  who  would  be  considered  the  most  free  from  Jewish  prej 
udice,  his  Gospel  was  regarded  by  Marcion  as  giving  a  more  correct 
history  of  the  acts  and  teachings  of  Christ  than  the  other  three.    In 
accordance  with  these  views  he  received  ten  Epistles  of  Paul;  not 
entire,  however.     Tertullian  addresses  Marcion  "  as  having  dared 
to  destroy  the  original  documents  of  Christ's  life,  and  as  rejecting 
what  he  formerly  believed,  as  Marcion  confesses  in  a  certain  Epistle, 
and  which  his  followers  do  not  deny."7    "If  the  Scriptures,"  says 

1  Contra  Hoereses,  lib.  i,  cap.  xxvii. 

'See  Epiphanius,  Haeresis  xlii  ;  Tertullian,  Ad  versus  Marcionem,  iv,  cap.  ii. 

3Epiphanius,  ibid. 

*  Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung,  p.  49,  1875.     Baur,  while  conceding  the  priority  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  nevertheless  thinks  that  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  contained  some  readings 
more  original  than  those  of  our  Canonical  Text.     Die  Drei  Erst.  Jahr.,  p.  75. 

*  Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  iv,  cap.  iii. 

6  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  Mark  was  supposed  to  have  written  his  Gospel 
from  the  preaching  of  Peter.  7  De  Carne  Christi,  cap.  ii. 


536  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

Tertullian,  "  which  oppose  your  opinion,  you  had  not  either  rejected 
or  corrupted,  the  Gospel  of  John  would  have  confounded  you."  ' 
Epiphanius  2  relates  of  Marcion,  that  when  he  went  to  Rome  he  asked 
the  presbyters  to  explain  to  him  the  meaning  of  Matt,  ix,  16,  17,  which 
shows  his  acquaintance  with  that  Gospel.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Marcion  was  acquainted  with  our  four  Gospels,  and  that  he  re 
garded  them  as  written  by  apostles  or  their  companions.  In  select 
ing  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  along  with  a  part  of  Paul's  Epistles,  he 
shows  that  he  regarded  that  Gospel  as  the  writing  of  the  companion 
of  Paul. 

THE   TESTIMONY   OF   BASILIDES. 

This  eminent  gnostic,  the  chief  seat  of  whose  activity  was  Alex 
andria,  flourished,  according  to  Clement 8  of  Alexandria,  in  the  time 
of  Hadrian  (A.  D.  117-138),  and  lived  till  the  time  of  the  elder  An- 
toninus  (Pius).  A.  D.  138.  Nearly  coinciding  with  this  is  the  state 
ment  of  Jerome,4  that  his  death  5  occurred  during  the  war  of  the 
Romans  with  Barchochebas  (132-135). 

He  wrote  twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel ;  an  effort,  in  all  prob 
ability,  to  bring  the  teachings  of  the  Gospel  into  harmony  with  his 
system,  which  he  pretended  to  have  derived  from  Glaukias,  the  in 
terpreter  of  Peter."  Hippolytus  7  states  that  Basilides  and  Isodorus, 
his  genuine  son  and  disciple,  say  that  Matthias  communicated  to 
them  orally  secret  doctrines  which  he  learned  by  private  instruction 
from  the  Saviour.  At  all  events,  Basilides  claimed  an  oral  tradition 
from  the  apostles  as  the  basis  of  his  system,  and  made  use  of  Script 
ure  to  prove  it.  Basilides  wrote  his  expositions  about  A.  D.  120  or 
125,  and  was  refuted  by  Agrippa  Castor  about  A.  D.  135  in  an  able 
work  which  was  extant  in  the  time  of  Eusebius.8  Of  this  work  of 
Basilides,  Clement 9  of  Alexandria  quotes  the  twenty-third  book  un 
der  the  title  of  "  Expositions."  It  is  evident  from  this  title  and  from 
the  extracts  which  Clement  gives  on  the  punishment  of  Christians 
who  bear  testimony  for  Christ,  that  the  work  was  principally  an  ex 
position  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  in  accordance  with  his 

1  De  Carne  Christi,  cap.  Hi.  *  Hseresis  xlix. 

1  Stromata,  vii,  cap.  xvii.  4  De  Viris  Illus.  Agrippa. 

"This  depends  upon  the  reading moritus,  died,  instead  of  moratus,  lingered  CT tar 
ried,  for  the  MSS.  fluctuate  between  these  two  readings.  But  the  Greek  of  the  pas 
sage,  which  is  probably  more  ancient  than  any  Latin  MS.,  has  "died"  The  sense 
of  the  passage  requires  the  reading  moritus,  died,  as  there  would  be  no  propriety  in 
saying  that  Basilides  was  lingering  in  the  war  of  Barchochebas. 

6  So  states  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Stromata,  lib.  vii,  cap.  xvii. 

*  Philosophoumena,  lib.  vii,  sec.  20.  *  Hist  Eccles.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  vii 

*  Stromata,  lib.  iv,  cap.  xii. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  527 

doctrines,  and  that  it  was  not  a  Gospel  that  he  had  himself  written.1 
Gieseler  well  observes  that  these  twenty-four-books  "  may  have  also 
been  called  his  Gospel."  : 

This  distinguished  Gnostic  quotes  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  John. 
Hippolytus,  in  describing  the  system  of  Basilides,  says :  Quotations 
"Since  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  say  that  an  emana-  JJJJJj 
tion  from  a  non-existing  God  was  something  not  exist-  Wes. 
ing,  (for  Basilides  very  much  shuns  and  dreads  the  substances  of  the 
things  that  have  been  generated  by  emanation ;  for  what  emanation 
was  necessary,  or  what  matter  must  be  presupposed,  that  God  may 
form  the  world  as  the  spider  spins  its  thread,  or  as  mortal  man  takes 
and  forms  brass,  wood,  or  any  other  material?)  but  he  says,  he 
(God)  spoke  and  it  was  done ;  and  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by 
Moses,  as  these  men  say :  *  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light.' 
Whence,  says  he,  did  the  light  originate  ?  From  nothing.  For  it  is 
not  written,  he  says,  whence,  but  this  only,  from  the  voice  of  the 
speaker.  But  he  who  speaks,  he  says,  was  not ;  nor  was  the  thing 
spoken.  The  seed  of  the  world,  says  he,  was  formed  from  non-ex 
isting  things,  the  word  that  was  spoken,  '  Let  there  be  light,'  and  this, 
says  he.  is  that  which  is  said  in  the  Gospels  :  *  That  was  the  true  light 
which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world'"  The  Greek 
text  here  and  in  John  i,  9  is  exactly  the  same,  and  there  is  no  ques 
tion  that  it  came  from  the  Gospel  of  John.  But  the  Tubingen 
school  of  rationalises  are  unwilling  to  admit  that  Basilides  himself 
quoted  this  passage — for  that  would  prove  that  the  Gospel  of  John 
was  in  existence  at  an  earlier  period  than  they  concede.  They 
would  have  us  believe  that  it  was  likely  a  disciple  of  Basilides  who 
makes  this  quotation.  There  is,  however,  no  ground  for  doubt  upon 
the  subject.  For  Hippolytus,  when  he  introduces  the  passage  from 
John,  is  giving  the  fundamental  part  of  the  system  of  Basilides.  He 
is  not  talking  about  the  theories  of  the  disciples,  nor  about  the  school 
of  Basilides,  but  concerning  Basilides'  system.  With  the  exception 
of  the  son  of  Basilides,  Isodore,  who  was  also  his  disciple,  we  know  of 
no  eminent  man  belonging  to  his  party.  To  guard  against  any  mis 
understanding,  Hippolytus  frequently  states,  "  he  (Basilides)  says." 
It  is  the  doctrines  of  Basilides  that  he  professes  to  give.  What 
right  have  we  to  suppose  that  he  is  giving  the  views  of  any  other 
person  than  the  one  he  names  ? 

1  Basilides  uses  the  term  gospel  (evayy&iov)  for  the  Christian  revelation  :  *  he 
preached  the  gospel  to  the  Archon  of  the  Hebdomas,"  etc.  Philosophoumena,  vii, 
sec.  26.  When  Origen  states  that  "  Basilides  dared  to  write  a  gospel  and  to  put  his 
own  name  to  it "  (Homily  i,  on  Luke),  it  must  have  been  this  work  ;  we  know  of  no 
other.  3  Church  History,  vol.  i,  134.  8  Philosophoumena,  lib.  vii,  22. 


528  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Hippolytus  had  before  him  the  work  of 
Basilides  in  twenty-four  books,  which  is  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alex 
andria  some  time  after  A.  D.  192,  and  Hippolytus  lived  in  the  first 
half  of  the  next  century.  But  even  if  it  had  been  lost  in  the  time 
of  Hippolytus,  there  was  still  in  existence  the  refutation  of  it  by 
Agrippa  Castor,  from  which  he  could  have  learned  the  real  system 
and  arguments  of  Basilides.  How  absurd  would  be  the  supposition, 
of  Hippolytus  leaving  the  arch  heretic,  and  hunting  up  some  ob 
scure  follower  of  his,  and  calling  a  refutation  of  him  a  refutation 
of  Basilides.  Imagine  an  eminent  theologian  writing  professedly 
against  the  system  of  Calvin,  and  quoting  some  obscure  Presbyterian 
minister,  using  this  language,  he  (Calvin)  says !  "  It  is  true,  Hippo 
lytus  sometimes  refers  to  the  followers  of  Basilides  as  holding  the 
same  views  as  their  master,  but  nowhere  does  he  appear  to  infer  the 
doctrines  of  the  master  from  the  teachings  of  the  disciples.  If  a 
theologian  were  to  attack  John  Wesley's  doctrines  of  the  Witness  of 
the  Spirit  and  Christian  Perfection,  and  after  quoting  various  pas 
sages  from  him  should  add,  and  this  is  what  the  Methodists  assert — 
who  would  suppose,  for  that  reason,  that  he  had  not  quoted  Wesley, 
but  had  quoted  his  followers  ?  Baur,1  in  his  account  of  Basilides, 
gives  his  system  from  Hippolytus,  whose  authority  he  deems  of  great 
value.  Hippolytus  also  gives  another  passage  as  quoted  by  Basilides, 
which  is  evidently  from  John  ii,  4 :  "  That  every  thing,  says  he 
(Basilides),  has  its  own  time  the  Saviour  shows,  saying,  '  My  hour 
has  not  yet  come.'  "a 

Basilides  also  quotes  Luke  i,  35  :  "  This  is,  says  he  (Basilides), 
other  assa  es  ^iat  wmcn  nas  Deen  said,  '  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
quoted  by  Bas-  upon  thee,'  which,  coming  from  the  Sonship  through  the 
boundary  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Ogtloas  and  the  Hebdomas 
unto  Mary,  'and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,' 
which  is  the  power  of  separation,"3  etc.  Basilides,  as  it  appears 
from  Hippolytus,  also  made  use  of  several  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 
so  that  there  is  nothing  strange  in  his  making  use  of  the  Gospels. 
Baur  fully  concedes  the  early  age  of  these  distinguished  Gnostics. 
"The  most  reliable  witnesses,"  says  he,  "respecting  the  origin  of 
Gnosticism  agree  that  the  founders  of  the  Gnostic  heresies  appeared 
in  the  age  of  Trajan  and  Hadrian.  Basilides  lived  about  the  year 
125  in  Alexandria.  Valentinus,  about  the  year  140,  went  from  Alex 
andria  to  Rome.  About  the  same  time  came  thither  also  Marcioii 

Die  Drei  Ersten  Jahrhunderte,  pp.  205-213. 
Philosophoumena,  vii,  27. 

Ibid.,  vii.  26.     Baur  uses  this  statement  in  his  account  of  Basilides,  evidently  re 
garding  it  as  a  genuine  doctrine  of  Basilides. 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 


521) 


of  Sinope,  in  Pontus,  the  period  of  whose  activity  in  Rome  is  placed 
in  the  years  140-150."' 

The  testimony  of  Basilides  to  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  John  is  ex 
tremely  valuable,  as  during  the  early  part  of  his  life  Value  Qf  tha 
he  was  a  contemporary  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  must  testimony  cf 
ha  ire  known  persons  acquainted  with  some  of  the  apos 
tles.  Scarcely  less  important  is  that  of  Valentinus  to  the  Gospels 
of  Luke  and  John,  and  the  statement  of  Tertullian  that  he  received 
the  entire  New  Testament.3 


THE  NASSENI  OPHITES,  OR  SERPENT  BRETHREN. 

This  was  a  very  old  heretical  sect,  dating  as  far  back  at  least  as 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Their  system  was  nearly  allied 
to  that  of  the  Valentinians.  They  were  divided  into  various  sub- 
sects.  "  One  of  them  looked  for  the  sophia  [wisdom]  in  the  serpent 
of  Genesis,  and  hence  the  name  of  the  whole  party  "  (Gieseler).  A 
quite  full  account  is  given  of  these  heretics  in  the  Philosophoumena 
of  Hippolytus.  Their  system  is  simpler  than  that  of  the  Valen 
tinians,  and  is  doubtless  older. 

These  heretics,  as  they  are  described  by  Hippolytus,  make  great 
use  of  the  Gospel  of  John  ;  sometimes  they  give  extracts  John  used  by 
from  Matthew,  and  they  perhaps  used  Luke.3  But  the  the°Phites- 
uncertainty,  whether  Hippolytus  is  giving  the  views  of  the  Ophites 
of  his  own  time  (about  A.  D.  200-250),  and  their  way  of  quoting 
Scripture,  or  the  doctrines  of  the  earlier  members  of  the  sect,  is 
great ;  and  this  uncertainty  deprives  their  testimony  of  much  of  its 
value.  Yet  the  comparatively  simple  form  in  which  their  system 
presents  itself  in  Hippolytus  renders  it  probable  that  it  belongs  to 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  The  Perates  and  Sethians,4  as 
sociated  with  the  Ophites,  make  references  in  their  principles  to 
Matthew  and  John. 

REFLECTIONS   ON   THE   GNOSTIC   TESTIMONY. 

What  De  Groot  says  respecting  the  use  of  the  New  Testament  in 
general  by  the  Gnostics,  holds  especially  good  of  their  use  of  the 
four  Gospels.  They  would  never  have  thought  of  appealing  to  these 
Gospels  if  they  "had  not  possessed  in  the  universal  conviction  of 
Christians  a  sacred  authority.  For  the  Gnostics  sought  to  gain  for 
their  peculiar  medley  of  heathenism  and  Christianity  admission  into 


1  Die  Drei  Ersten  Jahrhunderte,  p.  196. 
*  That  is,  as  it  was  received  by  Tertullian  himself. 
'  Philosophoumena,  lib.  v,  sees.  i-iS. 
VOL.  I.— 34 


'  Ibid.,  lib.  v,  sees.  19-22. 


530  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

the  Christian  community.  This  medley  they  called  Gnosis;  and,  in 
order  to  give  it  a  Christian  colouring,  they  pretended  to  have  re 
ceived  it  as  a  secret  doctrine  of  the  Lord  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Apostle  Matthias,  or  of  a  disciple  of  the  apostles — Glaukias,  for  ex 
ample,  or  Marianne,  or  Theodades.  In  order  to  secure  for  this  pie- 
tence  the  appearance  of  truth,  they  took  writings  universally  ac- 
knowledged  and  possessing  authority,  and  explained  them  in  such  a 
way  that  the  same  doctrine  might  seem  to  be  found  in  them  that 
they  pretended  to  have  received  from  an  apostle,  or  the  disciple  of 
an  apostle."1  In  leaving  the  Gnostic  testimony  to  the  Gospels,  we 
may  use  the  language  of  Irenaeus :  "  So  great  is  the  certainty  re 
specting  the  (four)  Gospels,  that  even  the  heretics  themselves  testify 
to  them,  and  each  one  of  them,  starting  out  from  these  (Gospels), 
endeavours  to  establish  his  own  doctrine."  a 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

EVIDENCE    OF    THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    GOSPELS    FROM 
THEIR    SUPERSCRIPTIONS. 

A  LL  the  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  four  Gospels  contain  super- 
^*  scriptions  ascribing  them  respectively  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
and  John.  There  are  said  to  be  five  hundred  Greek  manuscript 
copies  of  John,  in  all  of  which  the  superscriptions  attribute  the  Gos 
pel  to  that  apostle.  We  suppose  the  number  of  MSS.  of  the  other 
Gospels  to  be  about  the  same. 

In  the  two  most  ancient  MSS.  of  the  Greek  New  Testament — the 
superscriptions  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus — both  belong- 
vatoSnus^and  in& to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  the  superscriptions 
Sinaiticus.  to  the  Gospels  stand  in  the  simplest  form :  Kara  Uaddaiov 
(According  to  Matthew)  ;  Kara  Mapnov  (According  to  Mark) ;  Kara 
\ovKav  (According  to  Luke) ;  and  Kara  IvavvTjv  (According  to 
John).  Cyprian,  a  Latin  writer  and  bishop  of  Carthage  (about 
A.  D.  250),  uses  the  phraseology  :  "  Cata  Matthaeum  ;"  *  "  Cata  Lu- 
cam  ;  "  *  "  Cata  Marcum  ;  "  6  "  and  Cata  Joannem ;  " '  showing  that 
thus  the  superscriptions  stood  in  the  Greek,  or  at  least  in  his  Latin 

1  Basilides  am  Ausgang  der  Ap.  Zeit.,  p.  34. 

'Tanta  est  autem  circa  Evangelia  hoec  firmitas,  ut  et  ipsi  haeretici  testimoniura 
reddant  eis,  et  ex  ipsis  egrediens  unusquisque  eorum  conetur  suam  confirmare  doctri- 
nain. — Contra  Haeres.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  7.  "Testimon.,  lib.  i,  cap.  xii. 

*  Lib.  ii,  cap.  viii.  '  Lib.  iii,  cap.  xxii.  *  Ibid.,  cap.  xxiv. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  68i 

version.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Greek  MSS.  of  the  Gos 
pels  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  bore  similar  superscrip 
tions.  Irenseus  (177-202)  speaks  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matth 
ew?  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke?  and  the  Gospel  according  to 
John?  In  the  same  way  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  the  latter  part  ot 
the  second  century,  speaks  of  the  Gospels  according  to  Matthew,4 
Mark,6  and  Luke.8 

That  our  Gospels  had  titles  prefixed  to  them  in  the  second  cen 
tury  appears  from  the  language  of  Tertullian  (about  The  Gospels 
A.  D.  200).  In  writing  against  the  heretic  Marcion,  ^"^ufe 
who  appeared  in  Rome  about  A.  D.  140,  and  abridged  second  cen- 
Luke's  Gospel,  he  remarks  :  "  Marcion  ascribes  his  Gos-  tury* 
pel  to  no  author,  just  as  if  it  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  affix  a  title 
to  that  whose  body  itself  he  had  considered  it  no  crime  to  destroy. 
And  I  could  here  take  my  stand,  and  contend  that  a  work  should 
not  be  acknowledged  which  does  not  show  its  face,  which  exhibits 
no  firmness,  that  inspires  you  with  no  confidence  from  the  fulness 
of  its  superscription  and  the  due  profession  of  the  author."1  From 
this,  it  is  clear  that  Tertullian  deemed  it  of  great  importance  that 
books  like  our  Gospels  should  present  their  authors'  names  on  their 
very  faces,  to  give  them  authority.  He  had  just  before  spoken  of 
our  four  Gospels  as  belonging  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John. 
As  Tertullian  used  the  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
are  authorized  in  inferring  from  his  language  that  in  this  version  the 
names  of  the  evangelists  were  prefixed  to  the  Gospels.  It  may  be, 
also,  inferred  that  he  knew  of  no  copies  of  our  Gospels  in  any  lan 
guage  without  the  authors'  names  attached. 

In  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  of  the  second  century  these  Gospels 
are  ascribed  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  We  guper8criptions 
have  no  knowledge  of  any  ancient  versions,  or  any  Greek  in  the  syriac 
MSS.  of  the  four  Gospels,  in  which  they  are  not  ascribed  ve" 
to  the  evangelists  whose  names  they  now  bear.  But  how  could  such 
a  unanimity  of  superscriptions,  both  in  MSS.  and  versions,  exist, 
unless  they  all  had  been  derived  originally  from  Gospels  having 
the  superscriptions  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John?  If  the 
original  manuscript  of  each  Gospel  had  not  been  inscribed  to  a 
known  author,  all  the  copies  of  these  original  Gospels  would  have 
been  destitute  of  the  names  of  the  authors,  and  the  MSS.  that  have 
come  down  to  our  age  would  exhibit  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  the 
anonymous  character  of  the  ancient  copies.  The  early  Christians 

^aereses,  lib.  i,  cap.  xxvi  'Ibid.,  cap.  xxvii.  'Lib.  iii,  cap.  ii,  sec.  9. 

*  Stromata,  lib.  i,  cap.  xxi.  *  In  Eusebius's  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xiv. 

*  Stromata,  lib.  i,  cap.  xxi.  T  Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  iv,  cap.  ii. 


532  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

were  unable  to  come  to  an  agreement  respecting  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — which  is  anonymous  in  the  most  ancient 
Greek  MSS. — but  no  such  uncertainty  respecting  the  authors  of 
the  Gospels  anywhere  appears.  It  cannot  be  for  a  moment  supposed 
that  the  early  Christians  would  have  unanimously  accepted  Gospels 
the  credibility  of  which  depended  greatly  upon  their  authors,  without 
knowing  that  the  authors  were  either  apostles,  or  men  of  repute  who 
were  companions  of  the  apostles. 

But  the  question  still  remains,  Did  the  evangelists  themselves  at 
om  the  evan-  tach  their  own  names  to  the  Gospels,  or  did  the  Christian 
ffie^upwaerijk  societ^es  to  which  they  were  originally  addressed,  and, 
tions?  in  the  case  of  Luke's  Gospel,  the  individual  to  whom  it 

was  sent?  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  it  was  done  by  the 
evangelists  themselves.  Histories  of  so  much  importance  must  have 
been  delivered  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  to  the  Churches  with 
which  they  were  connected,  or  in  which  they  especially  laboured. 
These  societies,  receiving  the  Gospels  from  the  hands  of  their  authors, 
would  naturally  affix  the  authors'  names  to  them.  The  Gospel  of 
Luke,  delivered  in  person,  or  sent  to  Theophilus,  was  known  to  be 
the  writing  of  Luke ;  all  the  copies  of  that  Gospel  would  have  the 
name  of  Luke  affixed  as  the  authority  for  the  history.  Nor  could 
these  Gospels  ever  have  been  received,  either  in  the  apostolic  age 
or  in  that  immediately  succeeding  it,  if  their  accounts  of  Christ's 
acts  and  doctrines  had  not  corresponded  with  those  delivered  by 
the  apostles  and  other  eye-witnesses  of  Christ's  life.  How  could 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  have  passed  for  his  in  the  Christian  com 
munities  which  he  taught  unless  its  accounts  coincided  with  what 
Matthew  had  taught  orally?  In  that  case  what  possible  motive 
could  there  be  to  forge  a  Gospel  in  his  name  ? 

Respecting  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  there  is  no  good  reason  why  the 
ancient  Church  did  not  attribute  it  to  Peter,  a  celebrated  apostle, 
directly,  instead  of  attributing  it  to  his  associate,  except  the  fact  that 
Peter  did  not  write  it.  The  Gospel  of  Luke  rests  on  grounds  pecul 
iar  to  itself,  which  we  will  consider  in  the  proper  place.  The  Gos- 
Forgeries  un-  pel  of  John  we  will  find  to  be  authenticated  by  the  tes- 
BreTiSe^f  So  timony  of  elders  at  Ephesus  and  by  strong  internal 
church.  evidence.  And  it  must  be  observed,  that  forgeries  of 

writings  in  the  names  of  the  apostles  or  apostolic  men  were  unknown 
to  the  earliest  age  of  the  Christian  Church.  That  age  was  too  full  of 
spiritual  life,  too  much  absorbed  with  the  realities  of  the  history  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  too  near  the  events,  to  think  of  counterfeit 
ing  the  sacred  oracles.  But  to  put  forth  Gospels  under  the  as 
sumed  names  of  apostolic  men,  instead  of  attributing  them  to  the 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  533 

apostles   themselves,    would   be   to    unite   amazing   stupidity   with 
wicked  fraud. 

The  most  remarkable  instance  of  forgery  in  the  history  of  Chris 
tianity  is  that  of  the  Clementine  Homilies,  written  in  the  ^  ciemeo- 
second  half  of  the  second  century.  This  heretical  work  tine  Homilies, 
professes  to  be  composed  by  Clement,  bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  first 
century,  in  which  the  pretended  author  is  converted  by  the  preach 
ing  of  Peter,  and  by  him  appointed  his  successor  in  the  episcopacy. 
It  is  dedicated  to  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  who  is  earnestly 
charged  to  reveal  its  contents  to  no  Gentile,  but  only  to  those  of 
his  own  countrymen  after  they  had  been  fully  tested.  In  this  way 
the  forger  guarded  against  the  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
book  derived  from  its  late  appearance.  The  letter  forged  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  and  which  is  represented  as  being  sent  by  him  to 
Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa,  is  first  given  by  Eusebius1  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  was  not  fabricated  earlier,  in  all  probability,  than  the 
last  part  of  the  second  century.  From  the  consideration  of  the  ex 
ternal  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  collectively,  we 
proceed  to  consider  them  individually. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MATTHEW. 
THE    PERSON    OF   THE    EVANGELIST. 

T^HE  author  of  this  Gospel,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  Christ, 
•*•  was  a  collector  of  taxes  (reAwvT/c)  when  summoned  to  the  apos- 
tleship.  In  Matt,  ix,  9  he  is  called  Matthew,  but  in  the  parallel 
passages  (Mark  ii,  14,  Luke  v,  27)  he  is  called  Levi.  But  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  Matthew  and  Levi  are  the  same  person  ; 
and  in  the  lists  of  the  apostles  (Matt,  x,  2-4,  Mark  iii,  16-19,  Luke 
vi,  14-16,  Acts  i,  13),  the  name  of  Matthew  appears,  but  that  of  Levi 
is  not  found.  Yet  Levi  must  have  been  an  apostle,  as  we  can  hardly 
suppose  that  Christ  called  him  (Mark  ii,  14,  Luke  v,  27)  for  any 
other  purpose.  Some  of  the  other  apostles  had  more  than  one 
name,  as  Simon,  named  also  Peter;  Lebbeus,  surnamed  Thaddeus, 
and  in  Luke  vi,  16,  called  Judas.  Little  is  known  respecting  Matth 
ew.  Eusebius  represents  him  as  labouring  among  the  Hebrews,  and 
writing  his  Gospel  when  about  to  leave  them  for  other  people.8 
1  Hist  Eccles.,  lib.  i,  cap.  xiiL  *  Ibid.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxiv. 


534  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  FATHERS  RESPECTING  THIS 

GOSPEL. 

The  earliest  statement  respecting  the  authorship  and  original  Ian 
Papias  on  the  guage  of  this  Gospel  is  that  of  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierap- 

MattS'sGo^-  olis» in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  He  says  that 
pel.  "  Matthew  wrote  the  oracles  in  the  Hebrew  dialect ;  every 

one  interpreted  them  as  he  could."  :  It  is  clear  from  this  language 
that  the  Gospel  was  not,  in  the  time  of  Papias,  used  in  the  Hebrew 
form,  but  that  he  speaks  of  what  occurred  when  the  Gospel  was  first 
written :  "Every  man  translated  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  he  could." 

Irenseus  states  that  "  Matthew,  among  the  Hebrews,  published  a 
Mention  of  Gospel  in  their  own  dialect." a  Origen  states  that  Matth- 
Mattnew'sGos-  ew  published  his  Gospel,  composed  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
and  other^Fa^  guage,  for  Jewish  believers.3  Eusebius  affirms  that 
there.  Matthew,  having  preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews, 

when  he  was  about  to  depart  to  other  people,  delivered  them  the 
Gospel  according  to  him  in  their  own  dialect,  to  supply  the  want  of 
his  presence.4 

Eusebius,  in  speaking  of  the  Ebionites,  some  of  whom,  he  says, 
believed  in  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  while  others  of  them 
denied  it,  remarks :  "  They  made  use  of  that  Gospel  only  nvhich  is 
called  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  took  little  account  of  the  oth 
ers."  '  He  also  observes  that  Hegesippus  quotes  some  things  from 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  from  the  Syriac  Gospel." 
Whether  he  means  by  the  Syriac  Gospel  the  Peshito  version,  or  not, 
cannot  be  determined.  Eusebius  relates  a  report  that  the  Christian 
philosopher,  Pantaenus  of  Alexandria  (about  A.  D.  190),  went  as  a 
missionary  to  India,  where  it  was  said  he  found  the  Gospel  accord 
ing  to  Matthew  written  in  the  Hebrew  language  (which  the  Apostle 
Bartholomew  had  left  with  the  Christians  to  whom  he  had  preached), 
preserved  to  that  time.7 

Jerome  says  that  Matthew,  first  in  Judea,  on  account  of  those  of 

,  ,         the  circumcision  who  had  believed,  composed  the  Gos- 
Jerome  s  testl- 
monytoMatth-  pel  of  Christ  in  the  Hebrew  characters  and  language. 

It  is  not  quite  certain  who  afterward  translated  it  into 
Greek.  "  Furthermore,  the  Hebrew  text  itself  is  preserved  until  this 
day  in  the  library  at  Caesarea,  which  Pamphilus,  tne  martyr,  very 

^aTdatof  fj.ev  oi>v  'Eppattt  dtaXe/cro  TO  Xoym  oweypd^aro.  'H/o^vetxye  8*  avrd 
6c  rj&vvaro  luaoro^. — Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxxix. 

•Contra  Hsereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  I         'In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xxv 
*  Ibid.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxiv.  *  Ibid.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxvii. 

6  Ibid.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  xxii.  7  Ibid.,  lib.  v,  cap.  x. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  535 

industriously  formed.  An  opportunity  for  copying  it  was  afforded 
me  by  the  Nazaraeans,  who  make  use  of  this  book,  in  Beroea,  a  city 
of  Syria:  in  which  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  wherever  the  evangelist, 
either  in  his  own  person  or  in  that  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  uses 
the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  Scriptures,  he  does  not  follow  the  au 
thority  of  the  Septuagint,  but  the  Hebrew,  of  which  these  are  two 
instances :  '  Out  of  £gypt  have  I  called  my  Son; '  and,  *  For  he 
shall  be  called  a  Nazaraean.' "  '  Jerome  also  remarks,  in  comment 
ing  on  Matthew  xii,  that  the  Gospel  which  the  Nazaraeans  and  the 
Ebionites  use  he  had  recently  translated  from  the  Hebrew  language 
into  Greek.  He  adds  that  very  many  call  it  the  original  text  of 
Matthew.8 

Origen  remarks  on  the  Ebionites :  "  The  Jews  who  have  received 
Christ  are  called  Ebionites,"8  of  whom  there  are  two  classes,  "  those 
who  believe  that  Jesus  was  born  of  a  virgin  as  we  do,  and  those  who 
believe  that  he  was  not  so  born,  but  as  the  rest  of  men."4  **  They 
observe,"  says  he,  "  the  law  of  their  fathers."5  It  is  clear  from  this 
that  he  includes  in  the  term  Ebionites  the  Nazaraeans  of  Jerome. 
Irenaeus  *  states  that  the  Ebionites  made  use  of  the  Gospel  accord 
ing  to  Matthew  only.  It  is  quite  certain  that  he  refers  to  the  He 
brew  text  of  that  Gospel. 

Epiphanius  of  Cyprus,  a  master  of  five  languages,  including  He 
brew,  (in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century),  remarks  Epiphanius's 
on  the  Ebionites:  "In  the  Gospel  among  them  called 
'  according  to  Matthew  '  (not  entire,  but  adulterated  and  pel. 
mutilated,  and  this  they  call  the  Hebrew  Gospel),  it  is  said  there  was 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  he  was  about  thirty  years  of  age, 
who  chose  us.  And  coming  into  Capernaum,  he  entered  into  the 
house  of  Simon,  surnamed  Peter,  and  having  opened  his  mouth,  he 
said :  Passing  along  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  I  chose  John  and  James, 
sons  of  Zebedee,  and  Simon,  and  Andrew,  and  Thaddeus,  and  Simon 
Zelotes,  and  Judas  Iscariot,  and  I  called  thee,  Matthew,  sitting  at 
the  custom-house,  and  thou  didst  follow  me.  I  therefore  wish  you 
to  be  twelve  apostles  for  a  testimony  for  Israel.  And  John  was  bap 
tizing,  and  there  went  forth  to  him  the  Pharisees  and  were  baptized, 
and  all  Jerusalem.  And  John  had  a  garment  of  camel's  hair,  and  a 

'Liber  de  Viris  Illustribus,  Matthaeus. 

1  In  Evangelio,  quo  utuntur  Nazaraeni  et  Ebionitae  (quod  nuper  in  Grsecum  de 
Hebraeo  sermone  transtulimus  et  quod  vocatur  a  plerisque  Matthaei  authenticum),  etc. 

*  Contra  Celsum,  lib.  ii,  cap.  i.  They  were  so  called  on  account  of  their  poverty, 
from  the  Hebrew  "ph^,  ebyon,  poor,  or  they  gave  themselves  the  name  from  their 
being  poor  in  spirit  (Matt,  v,  3).  *  Contra  Celsum,  lib.  v,  cap.  Ixi. 

6  Ibid.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  i.  *  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  sec.  7. 


530  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Leather  girdle  about  his  loins,  and  his  meat  was  wild  honey,  the  taste 
of  which  was  that  of  manna,  like  a  honey-cake  baked  in  oil."  On 
this  Epiphanius  observes  :  "  That  they  might  forsooth  convert  the 
word  of  truth  into  a  lie,  and  instead  of  locusts  (dtpidwv)  make  it 
cakes  in  honey  "  (kyK^idaq  kv  peAm.)  "The  beginning  of  the  Gos 
pel  among  them  is,  that  '  It  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod,  king 
of  Judea,  that  John  came  baptizing  with  the  baptism  of  repentance 
in  the  river  Jordan.  He  was  said  to  be  of  the  family  of  Aaron  the 
priest,  the  son  of  Zechariah  and  Elizabeth,  and  all  went  forth  to 
him.'  And  to  omit  much  that  it  gives,  it  adds:  'When  the  people 
were  baptized,  Jesus  also  came  and  was  baptized  by  John.  And 
when  he  came  up  from  the  water  the  heavens  were  opened,  and  he 
saw  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  in  the  form  of  a  dove  descending  and 
entering  into  him.  And  a  voice  came  from  heaven,  saying,  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased:  and  again,  This 
day  have  I  begotten  thee.  And  immediately  a  great  light  shone 
around  the  place,  which  John  having  seen,  says  to  him,  Who  art 
thou,  Lord  ?  And  again  the  voice  from  heaven  says  to  him,  This 
is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.  Then  John,  falling 
down  before  him,  said,  I  beseech  thee,  Lord,  baptize  thou  me. 
But  he  forbade  him,  saying,  Suffer  it,  because  thus  it  is  proper  that 
every  thing  should  be  fulfilled." 

Epiphanius  also  remarks,  that  "  Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates,  making 
Further  testi-  use  °^  ^s  same  Gospel  of  Matthew  with  them,  wish  to 
mony  of  Epi-  prove  from  the  genealogy  in  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel 
that  Jesus  was  born  from  the  seed  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
But  the  Ebionites  aim  at  the  opposite  of  this.  For  cutting  off  the 
genealogies  from  Matthew,  they  begin,  as  I  said  before,  saying,  that, 
it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod,  the  king  of  Judea,"  1  etc.  He 
also  states  that  they  call  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  '*  Ac 
cording  to  the  Hebrews ; "  "  for  to  speak  the  truth,  Matthew  alone, 
of  the  New  Testament  writers,  made  an  exposition  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  Hebrew  language  and  characters."8  Respecting  the  Naza- 
rseans,  he  states :  "  They  have  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
very  complete  in  Hebrew.  For  it  is  certain  that  among  them  this 
is  still  preserved,  as  it  was  written  originally,  in  the  Hebrew  language. 
But  I  do  not  know  whether  they  took  away  the  genealogies  which 
extend  from  Abraham  until  Christ."  J 

Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrrhus,  in  Syria  (about  A.  D.  423~457)> 
speaks  of  two  classes  of  Ebionites,  one  of  which  held  that  Christ  was 
the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  received  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  only.  To  this  class  belonged  Symmachus,  who  trans- 

'Adversus  Hareses,  xxx,  13,  14.  *  Ibid.,  cap.  iii.  » Ibid.,  xxix,  cap.  ix- 


OF   THE  HOLY    SCRIPTlnxES.  537 

lated  the  Old  Testament  from  Hebrew  into  Greek.  The  othei  class 
of  Ebiomtes.  he  says,  affirmed  that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin  they 
made  use  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  only,  kept  the  Sab 
bath  according  to  the  Jewish  law,  and  observed  Sunday  in  like  man 
ner  as  the  Christian  Church.  To  these  he  adds  the  Nazaroeans  * 
— Jews  who  honour  Christ  as  a  just  man,  and  make  use  of  the  Gcspel 
called  "  according  to  Peter." a 

From  the  foregoing  extracts  from  the  early  Christian  writers,  it 
appears  evident  that  they  were  unanimous  in  the  belief  Oonciasjons 
that  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  originally  in  Hebrew,  fromtneabove 
As  they  were  using  the  Greek  text  of  Matthew,  their 
natural  tendency  would  have  been  to  regard  that  as  the  original,  and 
the  Hebrew  Gospel  used  by  Jewish  heretics  as  a  Hebrew  translation 
and  recension  of  the  Greek.  Their  unanimity  respecting  a  Hebrew 
original  must,  therefore,  have  been  derived  from  a  primitive  tra 
dition.  Though  this  Gospel  was  said  to  have  been  composed  in 
Hebrew,  it  was  in  fact,  as  Jerome,3  who  translated  it,  informs  us, 
"  written  in  the  Syro-Chaldee  *  language,  but  with  Hebrew  charac 
ters."  We  have  also  seen  that  Jerome  in  one  place  declares  the 
Hebrew  Gospel  to  be  the  original  Gospel  written  by  Matthew ; 5  in 
another,  that  it  is  called  by  most  the  original  text  of  our  Matthew ; e 
and  in  another,  he  terms  it  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  ac 
cording  to  the  apostles,  or,  as  most  assert,  according  to  Matthew? 

It  is  clear,  from  Jerome's  account  of  this  Gospel,  that  it  generally 
coincided  with  our  Matthew.  It  contained  the  pas-  Force  of  the  tes- 
sages,  "  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son,"  and  "  He  %£?£  J£ 
shall  be  called  a  Nazarene," 8  found  in  the  second  chap-  Epiphanius. 
ter  of  our  Matthew.  And  Jerome  speaks  of  the  reading  Judae,  as 
found  "  in  the  Hebrew  text  itself"  (chap,  ii,  5),  not  Judaeae.9  As  this 
Gospel  contained  the  second  chapter,  it  had  in  all  probability  the 
first.  Had  it  lacked  this  chapter,  Jerome  could  not  have  failed  to 

1  Haeret.  Fabul.  Comp.,  lib.  ii,  I,  2. 

*  The  Gospel  according  to  Peter  is  mentioned  by  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
about  A.  D.  200.     He  read  the  book,  and  found  most  of  its  contents  accorded  with 
the  true  doctrines  of  Christ ;  some  things,  however,  were  of  a  different  character. 
It  appears  to  have  been  a  recension  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.     Se- 

pion's  account  of  it  is  given  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xii. 
"  In  Evangelio^kr/a  Hebraos,  quod  Chaldaico  quidem  Syroque  sermone,  sed  He- 
Lraicis  litteris  scriptum  est. — Advcrsus  Pelagianos,  lib.  iii,  2. 

*  This  was  the  vernacular  language  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  at  the  time  of  Christ 
It  is  called  in  the  New  Testament  'Efipaiori,  Hebrew,  because  spoken  by  the  Hebrews. 

*De  Viris  Illustribus,  cap.  iii.  "Comment,  in  Matt.,  xii. 

'Adversus  Pelagianos,  lib.  iii,  2.  •  De  Viris  Illustribus,  cap.  ill 

"Comment,  in  Matt.,  ii. 


538  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

notice  the  fact.  We  have  also  seen  that  Hegesippus '  quoted  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  When  Irenaeus3  states  that  the 
Ebionites  make  use  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  only,  we  are 
to  understand  him  as  meaning  the  whole  Gospel,  in  Hebrew,  doubt 
less.  And  this  corresponds  with  what  Epiphanius  3  relates,  that  Ce- 
linthus  retained  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew's  Gospel.  We 
have  also  seen  that  Theodoret 4  speaks  of  two  classes  of  Ebionites, 
one  of  which  used  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  only,  and  the  other  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  This  last  work  must  have  been 
a  modified  Gospel  of  Matthew ;  another  form  of  it  was  the  Gospel 
of  Peter,  used  by  Nazoraeans  (Nazaraeans). 

Epiphanius,  in  his  account  of  the  Nazarseans  already  given,  states 
that  they  have  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  in  Hebrew  very 
complete,  but  that  he  does  not  know  whether  they  removed  the  first 
two  chapters  or  not.  The  ignorance  of  Epiphanius  upon  this  point 
arose  from  the  fact  that  he  lived  in  the  Island  of  Cyprus,  while  the 
Nazaraeans  flourished  in  Syria.  But  his  want  of  information  upon 
this  point  is  supplied  by  Jerome,  who  gives  extracts  from  the  second 
chapter,  and  knows  nothing  of  the  elision  of  the  first. 

We  have,  however,  seen  that  Epiphanius  states  that  the  Ebionites 
had  cut  off  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew.  This  was,  doubtless, 
done  to  accommodate  that  Gospel  to  their  doctrine — that  Christ  was 
the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  But  what  number  of  them  did  this 
we  cannot  determine  ;  yet  it  is  likely  that  it  was  but  a  small  portion. 
The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  from  which  Epiphanius  says  the  Ebionites 
cut  off  the  first  two  chapters,  was  probably  a  Greek  recension  of 
Matthew,  used  by  the  Ebionites  in  Cyprus,  where  he  says  members 
of  that  sect  were  found,6  and  from  whom  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
obtained  the  copy  which  he  describes. 

That  his  copy  was  a  Greek  recension  is  very  likely  from  the  fact 
that  he  says  the  Greek  word  aKpidag,  locusts,  in  Matthew  iii,  4,  was 
changed  into  £y«pi'<5ac,8  cakes  made  with  oil  and  honey.  This  is  further 
probable  from  its  being  extremely  unlikely  that  the  Syro-Chaldee 
language,  in  which  Jerome's  copy  was  written,  was  used  in  Cyprus. 
And  the  inference  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  the  two 
chapters  of  Matthew  were  elided  only  in  the  Greek  recension  of  the 
work.  To  this  it  must  be  added  that  Epiphanius  alone  among  the 
ancients  speaks  of  the  elision  of  these  two  chapters  by  the  Ebionites. 
It  also  appears,  from  Epiphanius's  account  of  the  mutilated  Gospel 

1  In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  iv,  22.   He  lived  about  150-170.      a  Lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  *ec.  7. 

*  H  seres  is,  xxx,  14.  4Haeret.  Fabul,  lib.  ii,  i,  2.  'Haeresis,  xxx,  18. 

•  These  two  words  sounded  nearly  alike  ;  written  in  English  characters,  they  are 
akridas,  locusts;  enkridast  cakes  made  with  oil  and  honey. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  539 

of  Matthew,  that  it  had  some  passages  from  Luke's  Gospel  It  con 
tained  additions  and  explanations. 

The  substantial  agreement  of  our  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  with 
the  Hebrew  Gospel  used  by  the  various  heretical  Christian  sects 
among  thr  Jews,  in  all  probability  from  the  last  part  of  the  first  cen 
tury,  certainly  from  the  middle  of  the  second  to  the  fifth  century, 
shows  that  they  had  a  common  origin.  The  extracts  from  the  He 
brew  Gospel  given  by  the  early  fathers  show  that  our  Matthew,  in 
comparison  with  it,  is  the  original. 

In  an  ancient  translation  of  a  part  of  Origen's  Commentary  on 
Matthew,1  respecting  chap,  xix,  16-22  it  is  stated  :  "  It  is  A  quotation 
written  in  a  certain  Gospel  which  is  called  according  to  byongenfrom 

the  Gospel  ac- 
the  Hebrews,  if  it  pleases  any  one  to  accept  this,  not  as   cording  to  the 

an  authority,  but  for  the  illustration  of  the  subject  be-  Hebrew8- 
fore  us  :  One  of  the  rich  men  said  to  him,  Master,  what  good  thing 
must  I  do  that  I  may  live  ?  He  said  to  him  :  Man,  observe  the  laws 
and  the  prophets.  He  answered  him :  I  have  observed  them.  He 
said  to  him :  Go  sell  all  which  thou  hast,  and  distribute  it  among  the 
poor,  and  come,  follow  me.  But  the  rich  man  began  to  scratch  his 
head,  and  it  did  not  please  him.  And  the  Lord  said  to  him  :  How 
dost  thou  say,  I  have  kept  the  law  and  the  prophets  ?  since  it  is  writ 
ten  in  the  law,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,  and  behold 
many  of  thy  brethren,  the  sons  of  Abraham,  are  covered  with  ordure, 
dying  with  hunger,  and  thy  house  is  full  of  many  good  things,  and 
nothing  goes  from  it  to  them,"  etc.  In  the  account  of  the  appear 
ance  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  it  is  stated  in  this  Gospel :  "  But 
when  the  Lord  had  given  the  napkin  to  the  servant  of  the  priest,  he 
went  to  James,  and  appeared  to  him,  for  James  had  sworn  that  he 
would  not  eat  bread  from  that  hour  in  which  he  had  drank  the  Lord's 
cup  until  he  should  see  him  rising  from  among  those  who  sleep,"1 
etc.  It  is  evident  that  both  of  these  narratives  are  an  enlargement 
of  our  Gospel  of  Matthew.  The  passage  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  quoted  by  Epiphanius,3  "  His  (John  the  Baptist's)  meat 
was  wild  honey,  of  which  the  taste  was  that  of  manna,"  is  a  gloss  on 
the  passage  in  our  Matthew  Origen  gives  the  following  passage 
from  this  same  Gospel:  "  My  mother,  the  Holy  Spirit,  took  me  just 
now  by  one  of  my  hairs,  and  carried  me  away  to  the  great  Mount 
Tabor."4 

In  the  account  of  our  Saviour's  healing  the  withered  hand  of  a 
man  in  the  synagogue,  Matt,  xii,  several  particulars  are  added  in  the 
Gospel  used  by  the  Nazarseans  and  Ebionites  :  "  I  was  a  stone  mason, 

1Tomus  xv,  14.  *De  Viris  Illustribus,  cap  ii. 

"Hseresis,  xxx,  13.  *  Comment,  in  Joannem,  torn,  ii,  6. 


CIO 


INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 


obtaining  my  living  by  my  hands;  I  beseech  thee,  Jesus,  to  restore 
me  to  health,  that  I  may  not  disgracefully  beg  my  bread."1  In  the 
account  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  in  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  we  have 
already  seen  that  several  incidents  are  added  to  those  we  have  in 
the  Greek  Matthew. 

The  additions  to  our  Greek  Matthew,  some  of  which  are  probably 
as  old  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  indicate  that  the  original 
Matthew  is  at  least  as  ancient  as  the  last  part  of  the  first  century. 
But  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  cannot  be  put  on  a  par 
with  our  Matthew,  as  is  evident  from  the  passages  that  we  have 
strauss's  ad-  given  from  it.  Strauss2  himself  concedes  that  our  Greek 
SSew'sGo*  Matthew  is  the  more  original  work.  It  is  to  be  observed 
pel.  that  the  differences  between  our  Matthew  and  the  He 

brew  Gospel  are  made  prominent  by  the  early  Christian  writers,  while 
there  was  but  little  occasion  to  notice  their  general  agreement,  which 
must  have  been  quite  close,  otherwise  no  one  could  have  supposed 
that  the  Hebrew  Gospel  had  the  same  origin  as  the  Greek  Matthew. 

Hilgenfeld  thinks  that  the  basis  of  our  Greek  Matthew  was  a  Gos- 
TTU  enfeid's  Pe^  written  originally  in  Hebrew,  before  the  destruction 
theory  of  the  of  Jerusalem,  but  enlarged  and  revised  soon  after  that 
Greek  Mattil-  event,  and,  in  its  present  form,  adapted  to  the  Gentile 
ew.  Christians;  and  that  this  original  Hebrew  Gospel  was 

closely  allied  with  that  used  by  the  Nazaraeans.  He  refers  to  a  state- 
ment  of  Nicephorus — patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  the  last  part  of 
the  eighth  and  in  the  first  part  of  the  ninth  century — that  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew  contains  twenty-five  hundred  lines,  and  the  Gospel  ac 
cording  to  the  Hebrews  twenty-  two  hundred  lines,  making  the  matter 
in  the  latter  three  hundred  lines  less  than  in  our  Gospel  of  Matthew. 
But  this  statement  is  worthless,  for  Nicephorus  also  says  that  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  contain  twenty-eight  hundred  lines,  three  hun 
dred  more  than  Matthew,  when  in  fact  they  contain  only  about  one 
hundred  and  fifteen  more.  He  also  states  that  Mark's  Gospel  con 
tains  two  thousand  lines,  four  fifths  as  much  matter  as  Matthew's, 
whereas  on  the  basis  of  Matthew  it  should  have  been  about  fifteen 
hundred  and  fifty,  about  two  thirds  of  Matthew.  Nor  do  we  know 
to  what  recension  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  Nicephorus  refers.  The 
recension  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  which  Epiphanius  had  lacked  the 
first  two  chapters,  and  seems  to  have  been  a  Greek  version.  This 
recension  is  very  likely  the  one  which  Nicephorus  says  contained 
twenty-two  hundred  lines.8 

1  In  Jerome's  Comment,  in  Matt,  xil         *Das  Leben  Jesu,  p.  50.    Leipzig,  1874. 
8  If  Nicephorus  had  before  him  this  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  though  containing  as  much 
matter  as  our  Matthew,  it  would  have  occupied  less  space  in  that  language. 


OF   THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  541 

It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that,  if  the  Greek  Gospel 
of  Matthew  contained  a  great  deal  more  matter  than  Not  likely  that 
the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  the  Nazaraeans,  Jerome,  who  ^"T^he 
translated  it  into  Greek,  would  have  failed  to  notice  the  translator  of 
fact.  But  would  the  translator  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  Matthew- 
have  dared  to  make  large  additions  of  his  own  to  the  work  of  an 
apcstle  of  Christ?  Yet,  if  he  was  bold  and  unscrupulous  enough  to 
do  this,  the  fraud  would  have  been  soon  detected,  for  both  before 
and  many  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  there  were  many 
Jewish  Christians  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  (Syro-Chaldee)  lan 
guage,  as  well  as  Greek,  holding  fellowship  with  the  Gentile  Chris 
tians.  In  the  many  translations  made  of  the  New  Testament  books 
in  the  early  ages,  in  no  instance  did  the  translator  add  new  matter 
to  the  Greek  text. 

Nor  could  the  Greek  text  of  Matthew  have  been  enlarged  without 
the  additions  becoming  known ;  for  the  Christian  Church  in  the  last 
part  of  the  first  century  was  widely  diffused  over  the  Roman  empire, 
and  many  copies  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  must  have  been  made. 
No  one  coul'd  alter  all  these  manuscripts,  or  even  a  large  portion  of 
them  ;  and,  besides,  the  result  would  have  been  that  we  would  now 
have  no  uniform  text  of  this  Gospel.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a  re 
markable  agreement  among  the  numerous  manuscripts  and  versions, 
showing  that  they  are  all  the  derivations  of  a  single  manuscript. 

The  reception  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  by  the  various  Christian 
sects  among  the  Jews  affords  strong  proof  that  it  came  Early  reception 
down  from  the  apostolic  age,  and  was  regarded  as  a  of  Matthew's 

.        .          _      .  Gospel  by  Jew- 

work    that   had   apostolic  sanction.     Epiphanms   states   ish    Christian 

that  the  heretic  Cerinthus,  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  sects> 
century,  made  use  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  retaining,  also,  the  first 
two  chapters,  and  endeavouring  from  their  genealogy  to  establish  his 
doctrine  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.1  We  have 
also  seen  that  Hegesippus,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
quoted  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews ;  and  in  the  account  he 
gives  of  the  testimony  of  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  he  attributes 
to  him  language  almost  identical  with  Matt,  xxvi,  64."  James  says : 
"  Why  do  ye  ask  me  concerning  Jesus,  the  Son  of  man  ?  He  is  even 
sitting  in  heaven  on  the  right  hand  of  great  power,  and  will  come  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven."8 

Here  the  question  arises,  Why  did  the  sects  of  Jewish  believers  in 

1  Haeresis  xxx,  14. 

'Similar  is  Mark  xiv,  62.     Hegesippus  also  quotes,  "  Blessed  are  your  eyes  which 
see,  arfl  your  ears  which  hear,"  etc.,  Matt,  xiii,  16,  in  Photius,  Codex  ccxxxii. 
'In  Eusebius.  Hist.  Eccles.,  ii,  23. 


542  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

the  second  century,  and  subsequently,  receive  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
only  ?  The  most  natural  answer  to  this  question  is,  Because  Matth 
ew  laboured  especially  among  the  Jewish  people  of  Palestine,  and 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  their  vernacular,  Syro-Chaldee,  for  their  instruc 
tion.  Nor  is  there  any  &  priori  improbability  that  Matthew  would 
write  his  Gospel  in  that  language,  especially  since  it  was  composed 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  when  the  Jews  in  Palestine  weie 
still  intact.  If  Matthew  confined  his  apostolic  labors  to  Palestine, 
where  he  must  have  used  the  Syro-Chaldee  language,  it  is  exceed 
ingly  improbable  that  he  could  have  composed  a  Gospel  in  Greek. 

Josephus  states  that  he  first  wrote  his  History  of  the  Jewish 
The  example  Wars  *n  h*8  vernacular  tongue  (Syro-Chaldee),  and  after- 
of  Joaepnus  ward  translated  it  into  Greek  for  the  benefit  of  other 
nations. 1  Why  should  not  Matthew  have  written  his 
Gospel  in  the  same  language  ?  But  though  written  originally  in  He 
brew,  it  would  soon  be  translated  into  Greek,  to  insure  it  a  more  ex 
tended  circulation.  This  version  was  made  so  early  that  the  name 
of  the  translator,  it  seems,  was  unknown  to  the  writers  of  the  second 
and  subsequent  centuries. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Why  did  not  the  translator  of  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  executed  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  make  his  version  from  the  Hebrew,  or,  rather, 
Syro-Chaldee,  text  of  Matthew,  instead  of  making  it  from  the  Greek, 
as  he  evidently  did,  especially  as  the  Syro-Chaldee  was  closely  allied 
to  the  Syriac  ?  To  which  we  would  answer,  that  at  that  time  the 
Hebrew  Gospel  was  used  only  by  the  sects  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
not  recognized  by  the  great  body  of  the  Church  as  orthodox,  and 
it  had  already  received  some  additions,  while  the  Greek  Matthew 
was  everywhere  used  in  the  Gentile  Church  as  the  authoritative 
text.2  t 

But,  notwithstanding    the    unanimous  testimony  of  the    ancient 

Church  that  Matthew  wrote  originally  in  Hebrew,  some 
Some  critics  in  .  .  °      .    J       . 

favour  of  a  eminent  modern  critics  have  decided  in  favour  of  a 
Greek  original.  Greek  original  Arnong  these  are  Lardner,  Hug,  De 

Wette,  Bleek,  and  Tischendorf.  Our  Greek  Matthew  shows  an  ac 
quaintance  with  the  Septuagint,  but  does  not  always  follow  it;  in 
some  instances  it  adheres  to  the  Hebrew  when  that  version  departs 
from  it.  It  is  clear  that  the  author  of  this  Gospel  was  acquainted 
with  Hebrew. 

1  Bellum  Judai'cum,  Procemium.     This  Syro-Chaldee  text  is  lost. 

1  The  following  is  the  subscription  to  Matthew's  Gospel  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  ver 
sion  :  "  The  end  of  the  Holy  Gospel,  the  preaching  of  Matthew  which  he  published 
in  Hebrew,  in  the  land  of  Palestine." 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  543 

The  manner  in  which  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are 
made  furnishes,  however,  no  proof  that  our  Greek  Matthew  is  not  a 
translation.  In  Matt,  ii,  15  the  translator  could  not  have  followed 
the  LXX  without  destroying  the  very  sense  in  which  the  evangelist 
uses  the  passage,  "  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son ;  "  for  that 
veision  has,  "  I  called  his  children  out  of  Egypt."  In  quoting  Isa. 
xlii.  1-3  in  chap,  xii,  18-20,  the  words  of  the  LXX  are  but  partly 
used ;  while  chap,  xiii,  14,  15  is  the  exact  language  of  Isaiah  vi,  9,  10 
in  the  LXX.  It  is  not  easy  to  explain  this. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew  bears  internal  evidence  of  having  been 
written  for  the  Jewish  Christians  especially.  The  main  Internal  pro0f 
purpose  of  the  author  is  to  show  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  ^^^de* 
Messiah  promised  in  the  Old  Testament;  and  he  ac-  signedforjew- 
cordingly  gives  the  genealogy  of  Christ  as  far  back  as  toh Chrlstians- 
Abraham.  In  about  eleven  places  he  refers  to  incidents  in  the  his 
tory  of  Christ  as  being  fulfilments  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies, 
besides  those  passages  in  which  he  represents  Christ  himself  as  re 
ferring  to  them.  In  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  Christ  contrasts  his 
own  teaching  with  that  of  Moses,  which  is  rarely  done  in  the  other 
evangelists.  To  the  Jews  he  says  :  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot 
or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled  " 
(chap,  v,  17,  18).  In  a  Gospel  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  these 
passages  in  our  Lord's  discourses  are  naturally  recorded,  but  in  one 
addressed  especially  to  Gentile  Christians  they  could,  with  propriety, 
be  omitted,  though  Luke  xvi,  17  has  a  similar  passage  to  Matthew 
v,  17,  1 8.  Nor  does  the  evangelist  anywhere  attempt  to  explain  the 
customs  of  the  Jews — which  is  very  natural  on  the  supposition  that 
this  Gospel  was  intended  for  Jewish  readers,  but  quite  strange  if  it 
was  designed  for  Gentile  Christians. 

Utterly  untenable  is  the  position  of  Hilgenfeld,1  that  our  Matthew 
is  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  that  evangelist,  enlarged  and  Hii,jenfeid'g 
adapted  to  the  Gentile  Christians.  Would  such  a  re-  theory  ocnsid- 
viser  have  allowed  such  a  passage  as  this  to  stand : 
"  Think  not  that  I  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till 
heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled  "  (chap,  v,  17,  18).  Nor  is  the  command 
of  Christ  to  his  apostles,  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not :  but  go  rather  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  "  (chap,  x,  5,  6),  adapted  to 
'Einleitung,  pp.  457-497.  Leipzig,  1875. 


544  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Gentile  Christians.  Wholly  unsuitable,  also,  for  these  Christians  is 
*he  language  Christ  addressed  to  the  Syrophenician  woman  (chap, 
xv,  26).  The  references  made  to  the  Old  Testament  prophecies 
would  not  be  so  appropriate  if  addressed  to  Gentile  as  to  Jewish 
Christians.  Nor  is  there  the  least  probability  that  all  these  refer 
ences  were  not  found  *  in  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  for  Jerome  states  that 
the  Gospel  of  the  Nazaraeans  had  the  two  references  in  the  second 
chapter  to  the  Old  Testament :  "  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my 
Son  ;  "  and,  "  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene." 

There  are,  it  is  true,  two  parables  referring  to  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles :  that  of  the  vineyard  (chap. 
xxi,  33-43),  and  that  of  the  marriage  of  the  king's  son  (chap,  xxii, 
2-14).  Also  the  declaration,  "That  many  shall  come  from  the  east 
and  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall 
be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness"  (chap,  viii,  IT,  12),  refers  to  the 
same  events.  But  it  was  to  be  expected  that  Christ  would  make 
declarations  of  this  kind,  and  the  denial  of  them  is  a  rejection  of  his 
foreknowledge.  Nor  are  they  inappropriate  in  a  Gospel  addressed 
to  Jewish  Christians  especially.  The  command  given  the  apostles  tc 
preach  the  Gospel  to  all  nations  (chap,  xxviii,  19,  20)  rises  above  the 
particularism  of  the  Jews,  and  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  great 
designs  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  But  such  outcroppings  of 
the  intended  universality  of  Christianity  were  to  be  expected  even  in 
a  Gospel  designed  especially  for  Jewish  Christians. 

THE   DATE    OF   THE   COMPOSITION   OF    MATTHEW'S    GOSPEL. 

The  oldest  testimony  upon  this  point  is  that  of  Irenseus  (about 
Testimony  of  A.  D.  180),  who  states  that  "among  the  Hebrews  Matth- 
irenams.  ew  published  in  their  own  dialect  a  written  Gospel  when 

Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  the  Gospel  in  Rome  and  founding 
the  Church."3  Respecting  the  time  when  Peter  arrived  in  Rome  we 
know  nothing,  and  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  Paul  in  that  city  is  to 
be  determined  from  his  history  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  This 
event  most  critics  place  in  A.  D.  60-63,  arjd  Paul's  death  about  A.  D. 
67  or  68.  If  the  statement  of  Irenseus  is  correct,  the  Gospel  must 
have  been  written  during  this  interval,  somewhere  between  A.  D  60 
and  68.  Clement*  of  Alexandria  says  that  it  was  the  tradition  of 

'Against  Hilgenfeld. 

'  'O  /nev  dr]  MartfaZof  kv  roZf  *E/3pa«Uf  rjj  idig,  SiahiitTy  avrijv,  Kal  Tpafyv  k%f)veyittv 
'Evayyf A/ow,  rov  Utrpov  not  TOV  Tlavhov  kv  'Pupy  foayyefa&fiEVUV  Kal  dspelitovvTuv 
TTIV  'EKKfyaiav. — Contra  Hsereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  i,  sec.  I. 

*  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  14.  He  was  a  teacher  in  the  Catechetical 
School  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  190-202. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  54* 

the  most  ancient  presbyters  that  the  Gospels  containing  the  geneal 
ogies  were  written  first.  Eusebius  *  states  that  Matthew  wrote  for 
the  Hebrews  his  Gospel  when  about  to  leave  for  other  people. 
There  is  nothing  very  definite  in  respect  to  time  in  these  last  two 
statements. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  the  oldest 
of  the  four.  "  All  considerate  inquirers,"  says  the  skep-  views  of  mod- 
tical  critic  Keim,  "  agree  in  the  admission  that  the  Gos-  em  critics, 
pel  of  Matthew  was  written  about  the  time  of  the  destruction  o' 
Jerusalem.  .  .  .  Preponderating  are  the  indications  that  it  originated 
before  this  destruction."  He  fixes  upon  the  year  A.  D.  68,a  about 
two  years  before  that  catastrophe.3  Hug,4  De  Wette,6  and  Ewald  * 
place  it  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  and  Bleek 7  in  the  year 
of  the  destruction,  but  before  it  rather  than  after  it. 

Baur  supposed  that  oar  Matthew  is  a  revision  of  the  Hebrew  Gos 
pel,  or  Gospel  of  Peter,  made  during  the  second  Jewish  war  (A.  D. 
132-135),  and  adapted  to  general  circulation  by  slight  modifications, 
but,  upon  the  whole,  reproducing  the  evangelical  history  with  great 
fidelity.  His  latest  view  substantially  was  that  our  Gospel  is  a  revis 
ion  of  the  Gospel  written  in  Greek,  of  a  strictly  Jewish  cast,  by  the 
Apostle  Matthew  between  A.  D.  50  and  60,  but  which  received 
small  additions,  about  ten  years  later,  to  adapt  it  to  universal  cir 
culation.8 

Strauss'  thinks  that  our  Matthew  was  formed  by  successive  addi 
tions,  based  possibly  upon  the  original  Gospel,  which  may  have  pro 
ceeded  from  an  apostle,  and  finished  at  a  quite  late  period. 

Renan  regards  our  Matthew  as  having  its  origin  in  "  the  discourses 
of  Jesus  collected  by  the  Apostle  Matthew,"  and  seems  to  think 
that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  not 
without  reason  it  bears  the  title :  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Matth- 

1  Euseb.,  iii,  24.  "Geschichte  Jesu,  pp.  24,  25.     Zurich,  1873. 

'Keim,  however,  regards  the  parable  of  the  marriage  of  the  king's  son  (chap,  xxii, 
2-14)  as  not  belonging  to  the  original  Matthew,  but  added  about  A.  D.  100.  He 
thinks  that  Christ  could  not  have  spoken  this  parable,  because  it  too  clearly  predicts 
the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  State.  But  if  this  addition  had  been  made  when  the 
Gospel  had  already  been  in  circulation  forty  years,  the  section  would  have  been  want 
ing  in  most  of  the  MSS. — which  is  not  the  case.  He  also  thinks  chapter  xxiv,  14  a 
later  addition. 

*Einleitung,  Zweiter  Theil,  8-13.  *  Einleitung,  p.  200. 

*Die  Drei  Ersten  Evangel.,  u.  s.  w.,  p.  89.     Gottingen,  1871. 

'Einleitung,  von  Mangold,  pp.  318,  319.     Berlin,  1875. 

'He  regards  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  "  as  relatively  the  most  genuine  and  the  most 
reliable  source  of  the  Gospel  history.' — Kirchengeschich.  der  Drei  Erst.  Jahr.,  p.  25 

*  Das  Leben  Jesu,  p.  50.     Leipzig   1874. 

VOL.  I. — 35 


546  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

ew."  He  thinks,  also,  "that  beyond  doubt  at  a  very  early  period* 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  were  written  in  the  Aramaic  language,  as, 
likewise,  were  his  remarkable  deeds  recorded.  He  supp  ases,  how- 
ever,  that  in  the  course  of  time  this  Gospel  received  some  additions 
and  suffered  some  changes.1 

It  is  clear  from  Matthew  xxiv  that  this  Gospel  was  written  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  has  been  preserved  intact.  For 
the  form  in  which  Christ  predicts  the  destruction  of  that  city,  con 
necting  apparently*  the  future  judgment  closely  with  it,  and  the 
highly  figurative  and  indefinite  manner  in  which  it  is  expressed,  are 
conclusive  proofs  that  it  was  neither  made  up  after  the  event,  nor  in 
the  least  degree  moulded  by  it. 

It  seems  proper  in  this  place  to  consider  the  assertion  of  Strauss 
AS  to  alleged  and  Renan,  that  this  Gospel  received  considerable  addi- 
interpoiations.  tions  to  its  original  matter  at  various  times.  In  proof 
of  this  assertion  not  a  particle  of  evidence  is  furnished.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  contrary  to  general  usage.  Who  supposes  that  Xeno- 
phon's  Memoirs  of  Socrates  received  important  additions  from  later 
hands ;  or  that  his  Anabasis  has  been  largely  interpolated ;  or  the 
History  of  Herodotus  ?  To  interpolate  an  author  is  a  fraudulent 
act ;  but  what  shall  we  say  of  the  frequent  interpolation  of  the 
writings  of  an  apostle  by  Christians  ?  We  do  not  charge  the  Mo 
hammedans  with  corrupting  the  Koran. 

But  even  if  a  few  so-called  Christians  were  unscrupulous  enough 
to  interpolate  the  Gospel,  it  is  impossible  that  such  interpolations 
should  escape  detection.  For  immediately  after  the  publication  of 
the  Gospel  many  copies  of  it  would  be  disseminated  among  the 
Christian  Churches  in  all  parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  but  few 
copies  could  receive  the  same  interpolations.  The  result  would  be 
that  the  ancient  manuscripts  and  versions  would  present  a  great 
variety  of  texts,  from  which  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  fix  with 
any  certainty  the  original  text.  But  we  have  no  such  disagreement 
of  manuscripts  and  versions,  but  a  wonderful  harmony. 

The  very  form  in  which  we  have  the  Gospel  shows  that  it  has  not 
been  made  up  of  heterogeneous  elements,  but  that  it  is  a  well  ar 
ranged  history  of  Christ.  Let  any  one  compare  it  with  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which  it  was  closely  connected  and 
he  will  see  at  once  in  what  condition  our  Matthew  would  have  been 
had  it  received  additions  to  its  original  form. 

The  Hebraisms  of  this  Gospel  show  that  it  must  ha^e  been  written 

*  Vie  de  Jesus,  Introduction.     Paris,  1867. 

'  We  say  apparently,  for  we  do  not  think  that  Christ  intended  that,  whatever  the 
apostles  may  have  thought  at  the  time. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  547 

by  one  whose  vernacular  was  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldee,  and  if  inter 
polations  were  made  in  it,  they  must  have  come  from  persons  of 
similar  education.  But  after  the  close  of  the  first  century  the 
Jewish  believers  in  the  Church  were  not  numerous.  Further,  each 
of  our  evangelists  has  his  peculiarities  stamped  upon  his  Gospel. 
The  foregoing  observations  are  applicable  in  nearly  their  whole 
extent  to  all  four  Gospels.  We  are  authorized  to  conclude  that 
Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  the  Syro-Chaldee  language  in  Palestine 
some  time  between  A.  D.  60  and  67 — most  likely  in  the  earlier  part 
of  this  period — and  that  it  was  soon  afterward  translated  into  Greek, 
and  has  come  down  to  us  in  its  integrity. 

The  only  known  instance  in  antiquity  of  the  denial  of  the  gen 
uineness  of  this  Gospel  is  that  of  Faustus,  an  African  Faustus  a  j^. 
bishop  of  the  Manichseans  (about  A.  D.  400),  a  man  of  JecterofMattfr 
natural  shrewdness,  but  destitute  of  culture.  Augustine 
says  that  this  man  "  published  a  volume  against  the  true  Christian 
faith  and  catholic  truth."  In  promoting  his  heresy  he  denied  the 
genuineness  of  this  Gospel,  declaring  that  the  use  of  the  third  per 
son  by  the  evangelist,  when  speaking  of  Matthew  (ix,  9),  is  incon 
sistent  with  the  author's  being  Matthew.1  Such  an  argument  shows 
the  ignorance  of  the  man  or  his  want  of  candour. 

THE  GENUINENESS  AND  CHARACTER  OF  THE  GOSPEL  OF 
MATTHEW. 

We  have  seen  the  strength  of  the  external  evidence  showing  that 
this  Gospel  proceeded  from  Matthew.  Now,  the  question  arises,  Is 
there  any  thing  in  the  Gospel  itself  inconsistent  with  its  apostolic 
origin  ?  It  would  be  a  singular,  and,  we  may  add,  a  sad,  spectacle 
if  a  Gospel,  received  everywhere  throughout  the  Christian  world 
from  its  first  publication  without  doubt  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle 
Matthew,  should,  after  the  lapse  of  eighteen  centuries,  be  discovered 
to  have  originated  from  no  apostle  at  all.  What  documents  be 
longing  to  antiquity,  either  of  a  sacred  or  profane  character,  could 
we  in  that  case  receive  with  any  confidence  ?  The  unanimous  judg 
ment  and  testimony  of  the  ancient  world  respecting  matters  of  fact 
should  command  our  belief  and  trust;  otherwise,  we  are  driven  to 
universal  skepticism. 

But  the  examination  of  the  contents  of  this  Gospel  reveals  nothing 
inconsistent  with  the  claim  that  it  is  from  Matthew,  the  apostle  of 
Christ.  It  clearly  sets  forth  the  original,  sublime,  distinctive,  and 
incisive  doctrines  of  Christ,  and  relates  his  godlike  acts  with  fresh 
ness  and  simplicity  of  language,  always  maintaining  the  apostolic 
'In  Augustine,  Contra  Faustum.  lib.  vii,  cap.'L 


548  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUD? 

dignity,  and  avoiding  every  thing  of  a  trivial  character.  The  Se-rmon 
on  the  Mount  bears  upon  it  the  stamp  of  the  originality  of  Christ, 
and  nowhere  else  in  the  evangelical  history  have  we  such  a  full  and 
clear  statement  of  Christ's  doctrines.  But  in  spite  of  the  high  char 
acter  of  this  Gospel,  and  the  universal  testimony  borne  to  it  by  ar  • 
tiquity,  doubts  have  been  raised  by  some  critics  in  modern  times 
respecting  its  having  originated  from  Matthew. 

De  Wette,  who  in  some  respects  may  be  called  the  chief  ot  skrp- 
Doubts  of  late  ^CS)  can  ^nc^  notning  m  tne  account  that  the  evangelist 
critics  consid-  states  respecting  Matthew  (ix,  9)  that  would  lead  us  to 
infer  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  true 
that  in  that  passage  he  speaks  simply  of  his  being  a  tax-gath 
erer,  and  being  called  to  follow  Christ.  Whether  he  should 
say  more  than  this  was  a  matter  of  taste.  In  the  Memoirs  of  Soc 
rates,  written  by  his  disciple,  Xenophon,  but  little  is  said  of  the  au 
thor,  and  nothing  to  connect  him  with  the  composition  of  the  book ; 
and  when  he  describes  himself  in  the  Anabasis,1  not  the  least  hint  is 
given  that  he  wrote  the  work.  De  Wette  thinks  that  an  eye-witness 
De  wette's  ob-  °^  ^e  ^e  °^  Christ  would  not  have  passed  over  his  min- 
jection  con-  istry  in  Jerusalem,  which  is  related  by  John.  The  pas 
sage,  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  to 
gether,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chirkens  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
would  not !  "  (Matt,  xxiii,  37)  clearlv  shows  that  our  evangelist  knew 
that  Christ  had  exercised  his  ministry  also  among  the  people  of  Je 
rusalem.  In  not  describing  our  Saviour's  earlier  visits  to  Jerusalem, 
and  his  ministry  there,  our  evangelist  does  not  stand  alone.  The 
same  omission  occurs  in  Mark  and  Luke.  Luke,  however,  mentions 
a  visit  which  our  Saviour  made  to  Martha  and  Mary  (chap,  x,  38-42) ; 
and  on  another  occasion  he  speaks  of  our  Saviour  being  in  a  vil 
lage  of  the  Samaritans,  with  his  face  set  as  if  he  was  going  up  to  Je 
rusalem  (chap,  ix,  53) ;  and  of  his  "  journeyings  towards  Jerusalem  " 
(Luke  xiii,  22).  He  also  says:  "As  he  went  to  Jerusalem"  (chap. 
xvii,  ji).  Although  our  Saviour's  abode  was  in  Galilee,  where  he 
chiefly  exercised  his  ministry,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  as  a  Jew,  he 
obeyed  the  law  and  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the  great  festivals,  dur 
ing  which  he  exercised  his  ministry  in  that  city.  But  the  fact  is, 
that  our  evangelist  devotes  about  one  third  (the  last)  of  his  Gospel  f> 
Christ's  teachings,  acts,  and  the  closing  events  of  his  earthly  career 
in  Jerusalem.  Matthew  knowing  that  the  most  important  events  in 
the  life  of  our  Lord  occurred  at  Jerusalem,  at  the  end  of  his  mis 
sion,  may  have  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  give  the  visits  of  Christ  to 
that  city,  since  it  was  not  his  design  to  write  a  full  history  of  the 
1Book  iii,  chap,  i,  ser.  4,  etc. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  549 

Redeemer.  The  same  reason  may  have  governed  Luke1  in  wiiting 
his  Gospel;  and  Mark  also,  unless  we  regard  him  as  imitating 
Matthew. 

The  only  way  in  which  the  omission  of  Christ's  earlier  visits  to 
Jerusalem  could  militate  against  the  evangelist  being  an  eyewit 
ness  of  Christ's  life,  would  be  to  show  that  he  knew  nothing  about 
them.  But  that  supposition  is  refuted  by  the  Gospel  itself,  and  is 
utterly  incredible  when  we  consider  the  early  period  at  which  it  was 
written.  Luke,  who  assures  us  that  he  had  "  perfect  understanding 
of  all  things  from  the  very  first,"  as  they  were  delivered  by  the  eye 
witnesses  of  Christ's  life  (chap,  i,  2,  3),  also  passes  over  the  early 
visits  to  Jerusalem.  Now,  the  Gospel  of  John  beautifully  supple 
ments  the  first  three,  and  is  confined  almost  entirely  to  the  narration 
of  Christ's  teachings  and  acts  at  Jerusalem  and  in  its  vicinity. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  John  intended  it  to  be  the  comple 
ment  of  the  other  Gospels. 

De  Wette  also  objects  that  Matthew  does  not  always  follow  the 
order  of  time  in  his  narration  of  Christ's  discourses.  Another  Objec- 
But  it  is  clear  that  our  evangelist  does  generally  follow  tion  by  De 
the  order  of  time,  and  if  any  incidents  seem  to  be  out  ^ 
of  natural  connexion,  that  fact  can  furnish  no  valid  objection  to  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  Gospel.8  As  our  Saviour  inculcated  the  same 
lessons  in  different  places,  the  evangelist  may  not  in  every  instance 
have  accurately  discriminated  the  occasions,  after  the  lapse  of  many 
years.  Christ  promised  the  apostles  that  the  Father  would  send 
them  the  Holy  Spirit  to  bring  to  their  remembrance  whatever  he 
had  said  unto  them,  but  this  did  not  necessarily  imply  the  exact 
order  of  time  in  which  each  thing  was  said.  In  the  observance  of 
the  chronological  order  of  events  Matthew  is  more  accurate  than 
either  Luke  or  Mark.  Yet  it  must  be  observed  that  the  evangelist 
may  not  have  cared  to  observe  closely  the  exact  order  of  time.  But 
we  are  not  sure  that  Matthew  has  at  all  failed  in  this  particular.  It 
is  easy  to  infer  from  some  preconceived  theory  that  certain  events 
and  teachings  should  stand  in  a  different  connexion  from  that  in 
which  they  appear,  but  we  have  no  sufficient  proof  that  they  are 
wrongly  placed. 

It  has  also  been  alleged  that  our  evangelist  does  not  describe 

*It  is  exceedingly  probable  that  Luke,  when  he  wrote,  had  not  sern  Matthew's 
Gospel.  According  to  Irenoeus'  statement,  when  Matthew  wrote  Luke  must  have 
been  at  Rome,  where  he  wrote  about  the  same  time,  or  soon  after.  Mark  was  evi 
dently  acquainted  with  our  Matthew. 

'Even  the  most  famous  of  modern  biographers  do  not  always  observe  the  order 
of  time. 


550  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

events  with  all  the  clearness  and  vividness  that  might  be  expected 
Another  mod-  *TOm  an  evewitness.  But  the  power  of  describing  events 
em  criticism  in  a  vivid  manner  is  not  possessed  by  all.  Further, 

Matthew.  some  narrators  almost  invariably  go  into  all  the  de 
tails  of  a  subject,  while  others  are  content  to  touch  upon  the  most 
important  points.  It  is  very  evident  that,  in  the  limited  space  to 
which  Matthew  confines  himself,  he  could  not  give  a  great  number 
of  particulars.  Yet  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  his  delineations  he  is 
generally  more  original  than  Luke. 

In  his  account  of  the  miracle  of  the  feeding  of  five  thousand  men 
with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes  (chap,  xiv,  15-21)  he  states  that  Christ 
commanded  the  multitude  to  sit  down  on  the  grass.  This  language 
probably  indicates  an  eyewitness.  The  mention  of  grass  is  wanting 
in  Luke.1  Matthew  is  more  specific  than  the  other  evangelists  in 
stating  that  there  were  five  thousand  fed,  besides  the  women  and 
children.  In  chap,  xiii,  i  he  gives  a  very  exact  statement,  wanting 
in  Mark  and  Luke — "  the  same  day."  But  it  must  be  observed  the 
greatest  part  of  Matthew's  Gospel  is  occupied  with  the  discourses  of 
Christ,  and,  consequently,  there  are  not  so  many  occasions  on  which 
the  evangelist  could  give  particulars. 

Bleek  does  not  attribute  our  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  Matthew,  nor 
Bieek's  opin-  ^oes  ^e  m^orm  us  wno  ne  thinks  wrote  it,  except  that  it 
ion  of  Matthew  is  not  the  work  of  an  apostle.  He  remarks  :  "  It  holds 
red'  a  lower  position  than  the  Gospel  of  John,  but  in  general 
it  stands  in  the  same  rank  with  that  of  Luke,  and  in  its  essential 
contents  for  the  Christian  faith  it  remains  permanently  a  credible 
•and  important  source."5  Undoubtedly  the  early  composition  of  our 
Gospel,  and  its  universal  authority  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age 
and  afterward,  show  that  it  contains  the  history  of  Christ  as  deliv 
ered  by  the  eyewitnesses  of  his  life,  whoever  may  have  been  the 
author.  But  we  cannot  allow  the  opinion  of  Bleek  *  to  weigh  much 
against  the  unanimous  judgment  of  antiquity — beginning  with  that 
of  Papias,  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century — that  Matthew  the 
apostle  wrote  it;  and  the  testimony  of  antiquity  is  accepted  by  the 
great  mass  of  modern  scholars. 

1  Mark  speaks  of  the  green  grass ;  John,  of  much  grass ;  John  was  an  eyewitness  , 
Mark,  if  not  an  eyewitness,  may  have  derived  his  account  from  Matthew. 

*  Einleitung,  by  Mangold,  p.  332. 

"Even  Hilgenfeld  acknowledges  that  our  Gospel  has  the  genuine  writing  of  the 
apostle  Matthew  for  its  foundation,  written  A.  D.  60-70,  which  was  revised  imme« 
diately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Einleitung,  p.  197.  Leipzig,  1875. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  551 


CONTENTS    OF    THE    GOSPEL    OF    MATTHEW. 

Tins  Gospel  opens  with  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  from  Abraham 
to  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary,  and  gives  an  account  of  the  mirac 
ulous  conception  and  birth  of  our  Lord.  This  is  followed  by  the 
visit  of  the  Magi  to  the  infant  Saviour ;  the  attempt  of  Herod  to 
murder  him ;  the  flight  of  Joseph  and  Mary  with  the  child  into 
Egypt ;  the  slaughter  of  the  infants  by  Herod  ;  the  return  of  the  fam 
ily  from  Egypt,  and  their  settlement  in  Nazareth  (chaps,  i,  ii).  John 
preaches  repentance  and  baptizes  the  people  in  the  Jordan.  Christ 
is  also  baptized  by  him ;  fasts  for  forty  days  in  the  desert  of  Judea, 
and  is  tempted  by  the  devil,  who  is  vanquished.  After  this  Christ 
goes  into  Galilee,  preaching  everywhere  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
performing  all  kinds  of  miracles  for  the  relief  of  men.  He  calls 
Peter,  Andrew,  James,  and  John  to  be  his  disciples.  Great  crowds 
follow  him  (chaps,  iii,  iv).  He  delivers  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in 
which  he  sets  forth  the  moral  and  religious  principles  of  his  king 
dom,  partly  in  contrast  with  the  Mosaic  system  (chaps,  v-vii).  He 
heals  a  leper,  restores  to  health  by  a  word  the  centurion's  servant 
sick  of  the  palsy,  cures  Peter's  mother-in-law,  and  casts  out  devils. 
To  a  scribe  wishing  to  follow  him  he  declares  he  has  not  where  to 
lay  his  head.  He  rebukes  the  winds  and  the  seas.  In  the  coun 
try  of  the  Gergesenes  he  casts  out  of  two  men  devils,  whom  he 
suffers  to  enter  into  and  destroy  a  herd  of  swine  (chap.  viii).  He 
heals  a  man  sick  of  the  palsy,  and  declares  his  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins.  He  calls  Matthew  to  be  his  disciple,  declares  that 
he  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners,  to  repentance,  and 
justifies  his  disciples  in  not  fasting.  He  heals  a  woman  who  had  an 
issue  of  blood,  restores  to  life  the  daughter  of  a  ruler,  gives  sight 
to  two  blind  men,  and  speech  to  a  dumb  man  possessed  of  a  devil 
(chap.  ix).  He  instructs  and  sends  forth  his  twelve  apostles  to 
preach  to  Israel  (chap.  x).  John  sends  two  of  his  disciples  to  Christ 
to  ascertain  whether  he  is  the  Messiah.  He  tells  them  to  tell  John 
what  they  have  seen  and  heard.  He  characterizes  John,  and  up 
braids  the  cities  where  most  of  his  own  mighty  works  had  been  done, 
proclaims  the  intimate  relations  existing  between  himself  and  his  Fa 
ther,  and  invites  the  weary  and  heavy-laden  to  come  to  him  and 
find  rest  (chap.  xi).  Christ  justifies  his  disciples  in  plucking  and 
eating  corn  on  the  Sabbath  day,  then  heals  the  withered  hand  of 
a  man  on  the  Sabbath,  and  justifies  the  action.  The  Pharisees  take 
counsel  to  destroy  him,  and  he  withdraws.  He  casts  the  devil  out 
of  a  man  blind  and  dumb,  who  speaks  and  sees.  The  Pharisees 
charge  Jesus  with  casting  out  devils  through  the  prince  of  the  devils, 


552  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

whereupon  he  declares  that  there  is  no  forgiveness  for  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  rebukes  the  people  for  their  wickedness,  de 
scribes  their  miserable  condition,  and  affirms  that  his  disciples  are 
his  nearest  kindred  (chap.  xii).  The  parables  of  the  sower,  tares, 
and  hidden  treasure  are  delivered.  The  people  are  astonished  at 
Christ's  doctrines  (chap.  xiii). 

Herod  beheads  John,  on  hearing  which  Christ  departs  to  a  desert 
place,  where  he  feeds  five  thousand  men  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes. 
The  disciples  in  crossing  the  Sea  of  Galilee  meet  a  storm,  in  the 
midst  of  which  Christ  appears  walking  on  the  water,  and  rescues 
them.  On  arriving  at  the  west  coast  of  the  sea,  he  heals  many.  He 
rebukes  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees  for  laying  great  stress  on 
minor  matters,  while  they  violate  the  great  moral  principles  of  the 
law.  He  shows  what  things  defile  a  man,  goes  into  the  region  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  heals  the  daughter  of  a  woman  of  Canaan,  and  re 
turns  to  Galilee,  where  he  heals  many  that  are  afflicted,  and  feeds 
four  thousand  men  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes  (chaps,  xiv,  xv). 

Christ  rebukes  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  who  demand  a  sign 
from  heaven,  warns  the  disciples  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  these 
men,  commends  Peter,  upon  his  expressing  faith  in  his  divine  char 
acter,  and  foretells  his  own  death  and  resurrection  at  Jerusalem. 
He  also  shows  how  he  is  to  be  served,  and  declares  that  he  will  re 
ward  every  one  according  to  his  works  (chap.  xvi).  He  is  trans 
figured.  He  heals  a  lunatic,  and  pays  tribute  (chap.  xvii).  He 
teaches  humility  and  the  duty  of  forgiveness,  treats  of  marriage,  in 
structs  a  rich  man  how  to  be  made  perfect,  declares  the  difficulty  of 
a  rich  man  entering  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  makes  large  promises 
to  those  who  have  forsaken  all  for  him  (chaps,  xviii,  xix).  The 
parable  of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard  is  given.  Christ  rebukes 
the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children  for  asking  great  honour  for  her 
two  sons,  and  heals  two  blind  men  near  Jericho  (chap.  xx). 

Christ  makes  a  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem.  He  drives  out  of 
the  temple  the  sellers  and  buyers,  and  overthrows  the  tables  of  the 
money  changers.  He  curses  a  fig  tree.  In  the  temple  the  chief 
priests  and  the  elders  dispute  with  him  respecting  his  authority. 
He  relates  the  parables  of  the  householder  and  of  the  king's  son, 
silences  the  Herodians  who  question  him  respecting  paying  tribute 
to  Caesar,  refutes  the  Sadducees,  who  deny  the  resurrection,  points 
out  the  two  great  commandments,  and  tests  his  disciples  respecting 
their  knowledge  of  himself  (chaps,  xxi,  xxii).  Christ  warns  his  disci 
ples  against  the  practices  of  the  Pharisees,  upon  whom  he  pronounces 
woes,  and  remonstrates  pathetically  with  Jerusalem  (chap,  xxiit). 
He  foretells  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  great  calamities 


OF   THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  553 

tl  at  shall  preoede  it,  and  also  his  coming  to  judgment,  and  exhorts 
his  disciples  to  be  faithful.  He  delivers  the  parables  of  the  ten 
virgins  and  the  talents,  and  describes  the  judgment  of  the  world 
(chaps,  xxiv,  xxv). 

The  Jews  consult  to  put  Christ  to  death.  He  is  anointed  by  a 
woman  at  Bethany.  Judas  agrees  with  the  chief  priests  to  betray 
him  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver.  Christ  eats  the  passover  with  his 
disciples,  and  afterward  goes  with  them  to  the  garden  of  Geth- 
semane.  lie  suffers  agony  in  the  garden ;  he  is  betrayed  by  Judas, 
arrested,  and  brought  before  Caiaphas,  the  high  priest,  who  examines 
him  he  is  declared  worthy  of  death,  and  insulted.  Peter  denies  him 
(chap.  xxvi).  He  is  brought  before  Pilate,  who,  though  declaring 
him  innocent,  delivers  him  to  the  Jews  to  be  crucified.  A  descrip 
tion  follows  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  events  connected  with  it. 

Christ  is  buried  in  the  tomb  of  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  and  a  guard 
of  soldiers  is  stationed  at  the  tomb  (chap,  xxvii).    An  account  of  his 
resuivection,  his  appearance  to  his  disciples,  and  the  commission 
which  he  gives  them  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  the  nations  (chap 
xxviii)  closes  this  Gospel. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    MARK. 
THE   PERSON    OF   THE   EVANGELIST. 

~PHE  author  of  the  second  Gospel  is  the  "  John,  whose  surname  was 
Mark,"  to  the  house  of  whose  mother  Peter  went  when  released 
from  prison  (Acts  xii,  12).  From  this  it  appears  that  he  was  a  resi 
dent  of  Jerusalem,  and  that  his  mother  was  a  Christian.  He  first 
appears  as  the  companion  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  their  missionary 
journey  from  Antioch  to  Seleucia,  Cyprus,  and  Perga  in  Pers(mai  his- 
Pamphylia,  where  he  left  them,  and  returned  to  Jerusa-  torycf  Mark. 
lem  (Acts  xii,  25;  xiii,  5,  13;  xv,  38).  He  also  accompanied  Bar 
nabas  to  Cyprus  (Acts  xv,  39).  This  is  the  last  mention  of  him  in 
I  he  Acts.  In  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  written  at  Rome 
about  A.  D.  62,  it  is  said:  "Mark,  the  cousin  (dve^io^)  of  Barna 
bas,  saluteth  you  "  (chap,  iv,  10).  This  relationship,  in  all  probability, 
explains  the  partiality  of  Barnabas  for  him  (Acts  xv,  37-39).  Also 
in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  written  at  Rome  about  A.  D.  62,  Mark 
sends  salutations  (verse  24).  It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  Mark  was 
at  Rome  while  Paul  was  a  prisoner  there.  Peter,  also,  in  his  First 
Epistle,  speaks  of  "  Mark,  my  son,"  by  which  term  he  seems  to 


554  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

nate  our  evangelist  as  his  spiritual  son.  This  Epistle  was  written 
from  Babylon,  where,  according  to  Josephus,  a  multitude  of  Jews 
lived.1  It  would  seem  that  our  evangelist  was  at  that  time  with 
Peter  in  Babylon.  It  is  not  improbable  that,  after  Paul  wrote  to  the 
Colossians  and  Philemon,  Mark  left  Rome  for  the  East,  and  joined 
Peter  in  the  region  of  Babylon,  and  then  accompanied  him  to  Rome, 
where  they  arrived  probably  some  time  during  A.  D.  64-67.  Peter 
was  evidently  acquainted  with  Mark  (Acts  xii,  12).  That  Mark 
probably  left  Rome  for  the  East  appears  from  Colossians  iv,  10, 
where  Paul,  speaking  of  him,  says:  "Touching  whom  ye  received 
commandments;  if  he  come  unto  you,  receive  him."  Eusebius  re 
marks  :  "  They  say  that  Mark  first  established  Churches  in  Alexan 
dria  itself." a  He  seems  to  place  his  death  in  the  eighth  year  of  Nero's 
reign3  (about  A.  D.  62),  as  he  says  that  Annianus  succeeded  him  as 
bishop  at  that  time.  But  this  date  of  Eusebius  is  too  early.  Epipha- 
nius  *  says  that  Mark,  after  he  had  written  his  Gospel,  was  sent  into 
Egypt  by  Peter.  Jerome  calls  him  the  first  bishop  of  the  Church  in 
Alexandria. 

It  appears  from  Papias  that  he  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  the  life 
of  Christ ;  it  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  he  saw  Christ  during 
some  of  the  Lord's  visits  to  Jerusalem.  But  from  the  facts  that  he 
was  living  in  Jerusalem  a  few  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
and  that  he  returned  there  some  years  after  he  had  accompanied 
Paul  and  Barnabas  on  their  missionary  tour  to  Cyprus  (Acts  xiii, 
5,  13),  and  that  he  was  intimately  associated  with  the  apostles  and 
other  eyewitnesses  of  the  life  of  Christ,  he  had  the  finest  opportunity 
to  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Lord's  history  and  doc 
trines.  Indeed,  in  the  circle  in  which  Mark  moved  the  works  and 
teachings  of  Christ  were  subjects  of  daily  discussion  among  the  eye 
witnesses  of  his  wonderful  history. 

CHARACTER   OF   THIS    GOSPEL. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  does  not  contain  more  than  two  thirds  the 
contains  i<*»  amount  of  matter  found  in  Matthew.  The  principal 


matter     than   omissions  are  the  genealogy  and  birth  of  Christ,  and  the 

events  connected  with  his  infancy,  contained  in  Ma:th- 

ew's   first  two  chapters ;  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  v-\  ii) ; 


'lou<Ja/«v.  Antiq.,  xv,  22.  The  time  of  which  he  here  speaks  was 
about  B.  C.  40.  About  A  D.  30  or  40  there  were  also  many  Jews  in  Babylon. 
Antiq.,  xviii,  cap.  ix.  This  Babylon  was  on  the  Euphrates,  about  the  site,  it  seems,  of 
the  ancient  city.  There  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing  Babylon  in  I  Pet.  v,  13  to 
be  the  mystic  name  for  Rome. 

aHL>t.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii,  cay.  xvi.  'Ibid.,  ii,  24.  *  Hseresis,  li,  6. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  555 

the  larger  portion  of  Christ's  address  to  the  twelve  apostles,  \vhen 
he  sent  them  to  preach  (Matt,  x) ;  the  parable  of  the  king  who  took 
account  of  all  his  servants  (Matt,  xviii,  23-34);  the  parable  of  the 
householder  and  his  vineyard  (Matt,  xx,  1-16) ;  that  of  the  marriage 
of  the  king's  son  (Matt,  xxii,  1-14);  nearly  all  Matthew  xxiii.  and  all 
xxv.     On  the  other  hand,  he  furnishes  us  with  some  particulars  not 
found  in  Matthew  or  Luke,  among  which  may  be  mentioned  the  ac 
count  of  Christ's  restoring  sight  to  a  blind  man  at  Bethsaida  (chap: 
viii,  22-26),  found  in  no  other  Gospel ;  the  mention  of  hired  servants 
in  connexion  with  Zebedee  (chap,  i,  20);  the  uncovering  (digging 
up)  of  the  roof  to  let  down  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy  (chap,  ii,  4) ; 
Christ's  grief  for  the  hardness  of  the  hearts  of  the  people  (chap, 
iii,  5) ;  Christ's  surnaming  Simon,  Peter,  and  calling  James  and  John 
Boanerges,  sons  of  thunder  (chap,  iii,  16,  17);  the  attempt  to  ar 
rest  Christ  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  in  his  right  rnind  (chap, 
iii,  21) ;  the  parable  of  the  seed  and  the  blade  (chap,  iv,  27,  28) ;  the 
"  shining  "  of  our  Saviour's  garments  when  he  was  transfigured,  "  so  as 
no  fuller  on  earth  can  white  them  "  (chap,  ix,  3)  ;  the  displeasure  of 
Christ  when  his  disciples  rebuked  those  who  brought  young  chil 
dren  to  him  (chap,  x,  13,  14) ;  the  statement  that  the  rich  man  came 
running,  and  kneeled  down  to  Christ  (chap,  x,  17) ;  the  name  of  the 
blind  beggar  Bartimeus,  at  Jericho  (chap,  x,  46) ;  the  names  of  the 
apostles  who  asked  Christ  respecting  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
(chap,  xiii,  3) ;  the  definite  sum,  three  hundred  pence  (chap,  xiv,  5) ; 
the  statement  respecting  a  young  man  with  a  "  linen  cloth  cast  about 
his  naked  body  "  (chap,  xiv,  51,  52).     In  chap,  i,  35,  Mark  says  that 
Christ  rose  up  a  "  great  while  before  day,"  in  which  he  corrects  the 
statement  of  Luke  iv,  42,  "  When  it  was  day;  "  of  Simon,  he  adds  : 
"the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus  "  (chap,  xv,  21). 

These  facts  sufficiently  show  that,  although  Mark  made  great  use 
of  Matthew,  following  him,  indeed,  as  an  authority,  yet  Independent 
he  possessed  independent  sources  of  his  own  for  the  his-  sources  used 
tory  of  Christ.1  And  he  is  thus  a  valuable  witness  to  by  Mark' 
the  a-thority  of  Ma':the\v's  Gospel.  Although  his  connexion  with 
Peter  was  so  intimate,  lie  adheres  closely  to  the  truth  of  history, 
even  when  it  reflects  severely  upon  that  great  apostle :  "  But  he  be 
gan  to  curse  and  to  swear,  I  know  not  this  man,"  etc.  (chap,  xiv,  71). 
The  passage  in  Matt,  xvi,  18 :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  church,"  which  tends  to  glorify  Peter,  is  omitted  by 
Mark,  when  relating  the  incidents  with  which  it  stands  connected 
(chapter  viii,  30,  31),  but  our  Saviour's  rebuko  of  him  is  recorded 
(verse  33). 

1  Hilgenfeld  concedes  that  he  is  not  a  m  :re  abbreviator  of  Matthew.   Einl.,  p.  516. 


556  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

It  is  very  probable  that  Mark  had,  also,  before  him  the  Gospel  of 
Luke,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  he  made  much  use  of  it.  I.,  is 
clear  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  for  Gentile  Christians,  for  we  find 
nim  making  explanations  that  would  have  been  unnecessary  in  writing 
for  Jewish  believers  :  "And  when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat 
bread  with  defiled,  that  is  to  say,  with  unwashed  hands,  they  found 
fault.  For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not.  And 
many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables  "  (chap,  vii, 
2-4) ;  "  because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the 
sabbath  "  (chap,  xv,  42). 

Ewald's  theory  of  the  origin  of  Mark's  Gospel  is  complex  and  pe- 
Ewaid'stheory  culiar.  He  supposes,  first,  a  brief  evangelical  history ; 
or  ttus  Gospel,  secondly,  a  collection  of  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour 
made  by  Matthew,  though  not  entirely  void  of  narrative  matter; 
third,  a  Gospel  written  by  Mark.  This  last  Gospel,  he  supposes, 
was  in  some  way  blended  with  the  two  preceding  works,  soon  after 
it  was  composed,  and  thus  a  complete  Gospel  of  Mark  was  formed, 
but  by  whom  is  uncertain.  This  last  work  still  passed  for  the  Gos 
pel  of  Mark,  as  the  basis  of  the  work  was  his.  The  oldest  form  in 
which  this  complete  Gospel  existed,  unknown  from  history,  is  that 
in  which  it  lay  before  the  author  of  our  present  Matthew,  and  which 
was  largely  used  by  him.  Luke  also  possessed  it,  in  a  still  more 
complete  form  than  we  have  it  now.  In  the  course  of  time  this  Gos 
pel  lost  considerable  portions,  so  that  we  do  not  now  possess  it  com 
plete.1  For  such  a  theory  as  this  there  is  not  the  least  probability, 
nor  a  particle  of  historical  evidence.9 

Mark  does  not  always  observe  the  order  of  time  found  in  Matthew. 
Chapter  v  is  placed  too  late. 

THE  GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK,  AND  THE  DATE  OF 
ITS  COMPOSITION. 

The  first  witness  we  have  to  the  genuineness  of  Mark's  Gospel  is 
Testimony  of  Papias,8  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  the  first  half  of  the  see 
the  fathers.  oncj  century.  He  informs  us  that  John,  the  presbyter,  a 

1  Die  Drei  Erst.  Evang.,  pp.  57-78.     1871. 

*  That  Mark's  Gospel  cannot  be  a  combination  of  other  Gospels  is  evident  from 
certain  peculiarities  it  has.  Uopevo^ai,  to  go,  occurs  twenty-nine  times  in  Matthew 
forty-nine  times  in  Luke,  and  in  John  sixteen  times.  But  nowhere  in  Mark  except 
in  the  spurious  addition,  chap,  xvi,  9-20. 

'  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxxix. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  557 

contemporary  of  the  apostles,  stated  that  Mark  wrote  from  the 
preaching  of  Peter,  whose  interpreter  he  was.  A  similar  statement 
is  made  by  Clement '  of  Alexandria,  by  Irenaeus,3  Tertullian,3  Origen,* 
and  the  fathers  in  general.  This  Gospel  was  universally  ascribed  to 
the  Mark  mentioned  in  the  Acts  and  in  several  apostolic  Epistles. 
Nowhere  do  we  find  a  single  dissenting  voice  in  the  ancient  Church. 
In  the  judgment  of  antiquity  respecting  its  author,  modern  critics, 
with  rare  exceptions,  concur.  De  Wette  6  concedes,  without  any  hesi 
tancy,  that  its  author  is  Mark.  Bleek  observes  :  "  There  is  no  suffi 
cient  ground  for  denying  it  to  be  the  composition  of  the  John  Mark 
to  whom  the  universal  tradition  of  the  Church  ascribes  it.  Much 
rather  does  this  supposition  find  its  confirmation  in  several  circum 
stances,"  6  Renan  7  considers  our  Mark  to  be  based  on  a  collection 
of  anecdotes  and  personal  instructions  which  Mark  wrote  from  the 
recollections  of  Peter.  He  supposes  some  additions  were  afterward 
made  to  it. 

Respecting  the  time  of  its  composition  the  earliest  testimony  is 
that  of  Irenreus  (about  A.  D.  180),  who  states  that  after  Early  evidence 
the  departure  of  Peter  and  Paul,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  as  to  date, 
interpreter  of  Peter,  also  himself  having  written  down  the  things 
preached  by  Peter,  delivered  them  to  us.8  By  departure  (et-odo$)  he 
evidently  means  death.  These  two  apostles  suffered  martyrdom  un 
der  Nero  about  67  or  68,  so  that,  according  to  Irenaeus,  this  Gospel 
must  have  been  published  some  time  after  A.  D.  67  or  68.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  (about  A.  D.  190  or  200)  states  that  Mark  undertook 
the  writing  of  his  Gospel  at  Rome  at  the  request  of  many  Christians, 
with  the  knowledge  of  Peter,  who  in  no  way  interfered  with  it.9  But 
Clement  does  not  say  that  it  was  finished  and  published  during  Pe 
ter's  life  ;  so  that  there  is  no  real  discrepancy  of  time  between  him 
and  Irenaeus.  The  statement  of  Clement,  as  Eusebius  informs  us,10 
was  derived  from  the  most  ancient  presbyters.  To  the  statements 
of  Irenaeus  and  Clement  respecting  the  date  of  the  composition  of 
this  Gospel  De  Wette  offers  no  objection.11  According  to  Clement 
of  Alexandria  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel,  as  he  had  learned  from  the 
most  ancient  presbyters,  after  Matthew  and  Luke, 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  cap.  xiv.         *  Lib.  iii,  cap.  i. 

'Advers.  Marcionem,  iv,  cap.  v.  4  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  cap.  xxv. 

5Einleitung,  p.  203.  8  Einleitung,  pp.  334,  335.  T  Vie  cle  Jdsus,  p.  54 

•  Lib.  iii,  cap.  i,  I.  'Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  cap.  xiv 

"Eusebius  also  states:  "They  say  that  Peter  gave  his  authority  to  this  Gospel, 
and  approved  of  its  being  read  in  the  Churches."  He  also  states  that  Clement  makes 
this  historical  relation,  which,  he  says,  is  confirmed  by  Papias,  ii,  15.  It  is  possible 
that,  in  this  statement,  he  has  blended  what  Clement  says  with  accounts  from  other 
sources.  »  Einleitung,  p.  206. 


558  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Bleek  places  the  composition  of  Mark  after  Matthew  and  Luke, 
Modem  critics  some  ^me  af"ter  tne  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  thinks 
as  to  the  date  it  probable  that  it  was  preceded  by  the  Gospel  of  John, 
since  Mark  in  some  places  seems  to  have  used  the  Gos 
pel  of  this  apostle.1  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  an 
tiquity  and  to  the  position  the  Gospel  of  John  holds  in  the  canon  in 
all  the  Greek  manuscripts  and  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  in  all  of 
which  it  stands  after  the  other  three.  No  one  would  have  thought 
of  placing  John  after  Mark  had  not  the  latter  preceded  it  in  time  of 
composition. 

Hilgenfeld  places  its  composition  soon  after  A.  D.  81,  in  the  first 
part  of  Domitian's  reign,  "when  Mark,  if  still  alive,  must  have  been 
very  old,  so  that  it  is  possible  that  the  Gospel  was  called  according 
to  Mark  from  him  as  its  voucher,  rather  than  its  real  author.  But 
in  no  event  was  it,  indeed,  forged."8  But  what  probability  is  there 
that  Mark  would  not  write  until  fifteen  or  twenty  years  after  Peter's 
death  ?  But,  even  if  written  at  about  A.  D.  85,  we  have  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  Mark  was  too  old  then  to  write  it  himself.  The 
first  mention  of  him  is  in  Acts  xii,  12,  25  ;  in  the  latter  passage  it  is 
stated  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  brought  Mark  with  them  from  Jeru 
salem  to  Antioch.  This  was  about  A.  D.  44,  when  he  may  not  have 
been  more  than  twenty-four  years  old,  so  that,  in  A.  D.  85,  he  would 
be  no  more  than  sixty-five,  not  too  old  to  write  a  Gospel. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Mark  states  that  Simon,  who  bore  our 
Saviour's  cross,  was  "  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus"  (chap, 
xv,  21).  It  appears  that  these  were  Christians  well  known  when  Mark 
wrote.  Now  we  find  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  written  about 
A.  D.  58,  Rufus  mentioned  as  a  Roman  Christian:  "Salute  Rufus 
chosen  in  the  Lord  "  (chap,  xvi,  13).  The  reference  to  Rufus  in  Mark 
is  quite  natural,  if  he  wrote  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem,  but  would  not  be  if  he  had  written  long  after  that  event.* 

There  is  nothing  in  Christ's  prophecy  concerning  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  (chap,  xiii)  to  indicate  that  this  catastrophe  was  already 
past.  On  the  contrary,  as  given  in  Mark,  it  is  strikingly  similar  to 
Matt  xxiv,  which  was  evidently  composed  before  that  event.  Upon 


'Einleitung,  p.  333.  'Einleitung,  pp.  517,  518.     Leipzig,  1875. 

5  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  refute  the  absurd  statement  of  Keim  (Geschichte  Jesih 
p.  37),  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  written  about  A.  D.  120!  Papias  in  the  first  half 
of  the  sacond  century,  as  we  have  already  seen,  states  that  the  Presbyter  John,  a 
contemporary  of  the  apostles,  said  that  Mark  wrote  from  Peter's  preaching.  But 
according  to  Keim,  in  the  time  of  the  Presbyter  John  this  Gospel  had  no  existence 
but  arose  in  the  next  century,  in  the  very  time  of  Papias  !  This  is  free  thinking  in 
the  literal  sense  of  the  word  ! 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  559 

the  whole,  we  may  conclude  that  our  Gospel  was  composed  some  time 
in  A.  D.  65-69. 

THE   PLACE   OF   THE   COMPOSITION   OF  THIS   GOSPEL. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  Clement  states  that  Mark  wrote  at  Rome, 
and  this  is  implied  in  the  language  of  the  ancient  fathers,  that  he 
wrote  from  the  preaching  of  Peter,  as  it  was  the  universal  tradition 
that  the  last  part  of  Peter's  life  was  spent  at  Rome.  And  that  this 
Gospel  was  composed  there  would  seem  probable  from  internal 
grounds.1  We  find  in  it  several  Latin  words  and  phrases,  e.  g.,  ffra- 
x,ovXdr^Qyexecutioner  (chap,  vi,  27) ;  notrjaai  rb  licavov,  to  do  the  sufficient, 
Latin,  satisfacere,  to  satisfy  (ch.  xv,  15) ;  /eevrvptwv,  centurion  (ch.  xv, 
39,  44,  45).  There  are  other  Latin  words  in  this  Gospel ;  but,  belong 
ing  also  to  some  of  the  other  Gospels,  even  to  Matthew,  no  special 
stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  them.  Nor  do  we  think  those  we  have 
adduced  have  any  great  weight  in  proving  that  the  book  was  writ 
ten  at  Rome.  The  mention  of  the  Roman  Christian,  Rufus,  is  most 
naturally  explained  by  the  supposition  that  the  Gospel  was  written 
there. 

At  the  end  of  this  Gospel  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  it  is  writ 
ten  :  "  The  end  of  the  holy  Gospel,  the  preaching  of  Mark,  which  he 
spoke  and  published  in  Latin  in  Rome."  But  the  Gospel  was  cer 
tainly  written  in  Greek ;  at  least,  we  have  no  proof  that  it  ever  had 
a  Latin  original. 

De  Wette,9  Bleek,'  and  Hilgenfeld 4  favour  the  original  appearance 
of  this  Gospel  in  Rome. 

THE   INTEGRITY   OF   MARK. 

The  last  twelve  verses  (chap,  xvi,  9-20)  of  this  Gospel  offer  an  in 
explicable  phenomenon,  whether  we  consider  their  his-  The  last  twelve 
tory,  their  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  or  the  verses- 
peculiar  character  of  the  text.  We  find  that  they  have  no  place  in 
the  two  oldest  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  the  Codex 
Vaticanus  and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  both  written  about  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.  These  two  manuscripts  end  with  the  words : 
"For  they  were  afraid."  They  are  wanting  in  the  Latin  Codex  Bob- 
biensis  of  the  fifth  century,  in  old  manuscripts  of  the  Armenian 
version,  and  in  some  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  ^Ethiopic  version. 

1  It  is  probable  that  Mark  interpreted  Peter's  preaching  into  Latin  for  the  Roman 
people. 

*De  Wette  thinks  the  passage  in  Mark  respecting  a  woman  putting  away  h?^  V.u» 
band  (chap,  x,  12)  presupposes  the  Roman  law  of  divorce.  Einleitung,  p.  aol 

°P-335-  « Pp.  516,517. 


560  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

Tischendorf  observes :  "  The  scholia  of  very  many  manuscripts 
bear  witness  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  ended  at  verse  nine  in  the  more 
ancient  and  (as  many  add)  in  the  more  accurate  copies." 

According  to  Eusebius,  "  This  section  is  not  found  in  all  the  copies 
of  Mark's  Gospel.  For  the  accurate  copies  contain  the  end  of  the 
history,  according  to  Mark,  with  the  words  of  the  young  man  who 
appeared  to  the  woman  and  said  to  them,  '  Fear  not,  ye  seek  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,'  and  with  the  following  words  which  he  adds,  '  and 
having  heard,  they  fled,  and  said  nothing  to  any  one,  for  they  were 
afraid.'  In  this  way  end  nearly  all  the  copies  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  Mark."3 

Gregory,  bishop  of  Nyssa,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century, 
observes  :  "  In  the  more  accurate  copies  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark 
ends  with  the  words,  '  For  they  were  afraid.'  In  some  copies  these 
words  are  added :  '  Having  risen  early  the  first  day  of  the  week,  he 
appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  out  of  whom  he  had  cast  neven 
devils.' "  Of  great  importance  is  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  who,  in 
speaking  of  verses  9  and  10  of  the  last  chapter,  observes:  "  Either 
we  do  not  receive  the  testimony  of  Mark,  which  is  found  in  few  Gos 
pels,  nearly  all  the  Greek  manuscripts  lacking  this  section  at  the  end  of 
the  chapter,  ...  or  we  must  reply,"  etc.*  Also,  Victor  of  Antioch, 
about  A.  D.  400,  remarks  that  in  most  copies  the  last  part  of  the 
sixteenth  chapter,  beginning  with  the  ninth  verse,  was  not  found.* 
Tischendorf  remarks  that  "  these  last  verses  are  recognized  neither 
in  the  sections  of  Ammonius,  nor  in  the  canon  of  Eusebius." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  verses  in  question  are  found  in  the  Codex 
Ephraemi  of  the  fifth  century,  in  the  Alexandrian  manuscript  of  the 
last  part  of  the  same  century,  in  twelve  uncial  manuscripts  extend 
ing  from  the  sixth  to  about  the  tenth  century,  and  "  in  the  cursive 
copies  that  have  been  collected."  They  are  also  found  in  the  Peshito- 
Syriac "  version  of  the  second  century,  in  copies  of  the  old  Latin,  in 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  in  the  Memphitic,  Gothic,7  and  ^thiopic  ver 
sions,  and  possibly  in  the  Thebaic.  The  i9th  verse  is  quoted  by  Ire- 
naeus  (about  A.  D.  180)  :  "  In  the  end  of  his  Gospel  Mark  says  :  *  And 

'Editio  Octava  Critica  Major,  Lipsioe,  1869,  p.  404. 

"  Qiuestiones  Ad  Marinum.  •  In  Christi  Resurrectionem,  Oral.  ii. 

4  Aut  enim  non  recipimus  Marci  testimonium,  quod  in  raris  fertur  evangeliis,  om 
aibus  Gnecioe  libris  pene  hoc  capitulum  in  fine  non  habentibus. — Epistola  cxx,  ad 
Hedibam,  cap.  iii.  •  In  Tregelles'  Printed  Text,  etc.,  p.  248. 

"In  Cureton's  Fragments  of  the  Gospels  in  Syriac  belonging  to  the  fifth  century 
verses  17-20  of  the  last  chapter  of  Mark  are  found. 

'  The  Gothic  is  defective  on  these  verses  ;  it  contains  verses  9-11,  and  ends  with 
cLe  first  part  of  verse  T2,  "  But  after  this."  It  doubtless  contained  originally  the 
rest  of  the  verses. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  561 

indeed  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  he  had  spoken  unto  them,  was  received 
up  into  heaven,  and  sits  on  the  right  hand  of  God.'"  It  is  uncer 
tain  whether  Celsus  had  the  disputed  verses  in  his  copy  of  Mark." 

The  next  question  is,  What  light  does  the  text  of  the  verses  in  dis 
pute  throw  upon  the  subject  ?  First  of  all,  we  are  struck  The  laat  verse8 
with  the  incongruity  between  the  contents  of  these  verses  andthepreeed- 
and  the  statement  in  the  seventh  verse  :  "  Tell  his  dis-  ^^^xt 
riples  and  Peter  that  he  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee:  there  shall 
ye  see  him,  as  he  said  unto  you."  This  refers  to  Christ's  promise  : 
"  But  after  that  I  am  risen,  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee  "  (Mark 
xiv,  28).  But  in  the  last  verses  of  Mark  there  is  no  account  of 
Cb  fist's  appearing  to  the  disciples  in  Galilee  in  fulfilment  of  the 
promise,  or  the  declaration  of  the  angel,  that  they  should  see  him  in 
Galilee.  This  is  certainly  strange  if  Mark  wrote  these  last  verses. 
Among  the  signs,  which  Christ  is  represented  as  promising  as  the 
Attendants  upon  believers,  are  the  following:  "They  shall  take  up 
'jeipents,  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them." 
Here  great  stress  is  laid  upon  mere  external  advantages,  as  the  pre 
rogatives  of  believers  indiscriminately.  This  language  was  hardly  to 
bo  expected  from  Christ. 

But  is  the  circle  of  words  used  in  this  section  the  same  that  is 
found  in  the  body  of  Mark's  Gospel?  Here  the  an-  The  last  verses 
swer  is  decidedly  in  the  negative.  We  shall  give  the  B*2£*5 
results  of  the  investigation  we  have  made  with  the  as-  Mart's  Gospel, 
sistauce  of  Schmidt's  Greek  Concordance.  In  Mark  xvi,  2,  "  the 
first  day  of  the  week  "  is  called  rq  fj,ia  ra)v  oapfidrw,  literally,  "  the  one 
of  the  Sabbaths  "  (weeks),  used  Hebraistically  ;  but  in  the  section 
under  discussion,  it  is  Trporn/  oaftfidrov,  "  first  of  week."  In  this  sec 
tion  we  find  ticeivTi,  that,  used  for  she;  etceivot,  those,  for  they;  £tfen>oic, 
for  them,  the  word  occurring  five  times.  But  Mark  never  uses  the 
word  thus  in  his  genuine  Gospel,  but  always  employs  it  as  a  demon 
strative  s  qualifying  a  noun  expressed.  Hopeveadai,  to  go,  occurs  three 
times  in  this  section,  but  in  the  genuine  Gospel  never.  This  is  very 
remarkable,  as  the  word  occurs  twenty-nine  times  in  Matthew,  forty- 
nine  times  in  Luke's  Gospel,  and  sixteen  in  John's  Gospel.  In  verse 
10  the  disciples  of  Christ  are  called  "Those  who  were  with  him," 
which  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  all  the  Gospels,  as  they  term  them 
fiaityrae,  learners:  it  is  rather  in  the  style  of  Xenophon.  Qedopat,  to 
sie,  to  behold,  occurs  twice  in  this  section,  but  nowhere  in  the  genuine 
Gospel,  but  four  times  in  Matthew,  three  in  Luke,  and  seven  in  John. 

1  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  x,  sec.  6.         f  See  Origen  Contra  Cel.,  ii,  59,  70. 

one  instance,  however,  Mark,  for  emphasis,  uses  inelvo  after  the  neuter  article 
with  the  participle  (chap,  vii,  20). 
VOL.  L— 3G 


562  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

In  this  sect'.on  of  Mark  it  is  used  quite  classically.  Hcc,paKo\ov$eG)t  in 
the  sense  to  accompany,  occurs  in  verse  17  of  this  section,  but  is  found 
nowhere  in  the  Gospels  except  in  Luke's  preface  to  his  Gospel,  to  fol 
low  up  closely ',  to  give  diligent  heed  to,  a  thing.  And  in  this  sense  it  is 
found  in  i  Tim.  iv,  6  and  2  Tim.  iii,  10.  The  word  is  found  nowhere 
else  in  the  New  Testament.  The  word  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
to  follow,  to  accompany,  simply,  is  d«oAovi9ecj,  which  is  found  nine 
teen  times  in  Mark,  twenty-five  in  Matthew,  seventeen  in  Luke,  and 
nineteen  in  John's  Gospel.  Kvptof,  Lord,  is  twice  used  historically 
for  Jesus  in  this  section,  which  Mark,  in  his  genuine  Gospel,  never 
does.  Wherever  he  employs  the  word  it  is  the  language  of  some 
one  else  that  he  is  relating.  In  speaking  of  Christ,  Mark  always 
calls  him  Jesus,  using  the  word  nearly  ninety  times.  The  other 
evangelists  use  it  a  still  greater  number  of  times.  Nor  does  Matthew 
ever  in  his  own  person  call  Christ  Lord.  Luke  and  John,  however, 
do  in  some  instances. 

All  the  foregoing  linguistic  peculiarities  of  the  section  seem  to 
prove  conclusively  that  it  was  not  written  by  Mark.  To  these  con 
siderations,  if  we  add  the  fact  that  it  seems  incongruous  with  what 
precedes,  and  that  it  is  wanting  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  of 
conclusion  as  ^ie  Gospel,  nothing  remains  but  the  conclusion  that 
to  the  last  Mark  did  not  write  it.  It  was  most  probably  added  to 
the  Gospel  in  the  first  century,  upon  what  authority  we 
do  not  know.  The  Gospel  terminates  abruptly  at  the  8th  verse  of 
chapter  xvi,  without  giving  the  appearances  of  Christ  already  fore 
told.  It  is  incredible  that  the  evangelist  should  have  left  his  Gos 
pel  intentionally  in  that  condition.  Something  must  have  interrupted 
him  before  completing  it,  or  the  manuscript  must  have  lost  the  con 
cluding  verses  of  the  original.  No  one  would  have  thought  of  muti 
lating  the  Gospel,  and  the  absence  in  it  of  the  appearances  of  Christ 
led  some  one  to  add  some  of  them  from  reliable  sources.  The  ap 
pearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  appears  to  have  been  taken  from  John 
xx,  11-18;  that  to  two  persons  who  went  into  the  country,  from 
Luke  xxiv,  13-31;  the  appearance  to  the  eleven  (in  Jerusalem), 
from  Luke  xxiv,  33,  etc. 

The  two  great  recent  critical  editors  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  leave  it  out  of  their  texts,  as  not  be- 
longing  to  the  original  Gospel  of  Mark.  Tregelles  remarks,  how 
ever  :  "  I  thus  look  on  this  section  as  an  authentic  anonymous 
addition  to  what  Mark  himself  wrote  down  from  the  narration  of 
St.  Peter."1 

Among  those  who  favour  the  genuineness  of  the  disputed  S':ccioD 
1  On  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  Testament,  p.  259. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  563 

are,  R.  Simon,  Mill,  Wolf,  Storr,  Matthsei,  Eichhorn,  Hug,  De  Wette, 
Bleek,  Olshausen,  Ebrard,  and  J.  P.  Lange.  Among  those  opposed 
to  the  claiu  of  its  genuineness  may  be  mentioned  Griesbach,  Cred- 
ner,  Wiesler,  Norton,  Reuss,  Neudecker,  Ewald,  and  Mangold. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    LUKE. 
THE   PERSON   OF   THE    EVANGELIST. 

OF  Luke,  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel,  but  little  of  a  personal 
character  is  known.  In  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  writ 
ten  at  Rome  some  time  after  A.  D.  60,  he  says,  "  Luke,  the  beloved 
physician,  greets  you"  (chap,  iv,  14).  In  the  Epistle  to  Philemon, 
written  about  the  same  time  and  at  the  same  place,  he  speaks  of 
Luke  as  one  of  his  fellow-labourers,  greeting  Philemon.  Writing  to 
Timothy  from  the  same  place  somewhat  later,  he  says,  "  Only  Luke 
is  with  me  "  (2  Tim.  iv,  IT).  Irenaeus  speaks  of  Luke  as  the  con 
stant  companion  of  Paul,  and  his  co-labourer.1 

Eusebius  states  that  Luke  was  a  native  of  Antioch,  and  a  physician 
by  profession.8  The  same  statement  is  made  by  Jerome.8  Notices  con- 
It  appears  both  from  the  Epistles  of  Paul  and  from  the  cemingLuke. 
Acts  of  the  Apostles — as  he  uses  the  term  "  we  " — that  he  was  a 
companion  and  assistant  of  Paul  for  a  long  time.  From  several  of 
Paul's  Epistles,  already  quoted,  it  is  clear  that  Luke  remained  some 
years  in  Rome  after  that  apostle  arrived  there  (about  A.  D.  60  or 
62).  It  is  uncertain  when  and  where  he  died.  Jerome  4  says  "  that 
he  was  buried  in  Constantinople,  to  which  city  his  bones  were  brought 
along  with  the  remains  of  the  Apostle  Andrew  in  the  twentieth  year 
of  Constantius  "  (about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century).  But  he 
does  not  state  where  he  died,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  if  he  had  been 
originally  buried  in  Rome  his  bones  would  have  been  removed  from 
such  a  splendid  city.  He  may  have  left  Rome  after  the  death  ot 
Paul. 

Luke  was  evidently  a  man  of  fine  Greek  culture,  as  his  writings 
ahow.     It  is  probable  that  he  was  of  heathen  extraction,  as  his  name 8 

Jiii,  cap.  xiv,  I.  'Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  iv. 

*De  Viris  Illustribus,  cap.  vii.     Jerome,  however,  says  he  was  of  Antioch  (Anti- 
ochenus),  but  does  not  state  in  the  passage  whether  he  was  born  there  or  not, 
4  Ibid.,  cap.  vii.  •  AovKdf,  a  contraction  of  the  Latin  Lucanus. 


564  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 

would  indicate,  but  whether  he  was  a  proselyte  to  Judaism  before 
embracing  Christianity  cannot  be  determined. 

He  was  every  way  qualified  to  write  the  history  of  Christ  and  his 
Qualifications  aP°stles-  Brought  up  in  the  great  literary  city  of  An- 
of  Luke  as  a  tioch,  led  by  his  very  profession  to  be  a  close  observer 
and  to  form  scientific  habits,  an  extensive  traveller,  for 
years  a  companion  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  associating  with  apostles 
and  others  who  were  eyewitnesses  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  he 
himself  having  spent  about  two  years  in  Jerusalem  *  and  in  othe? 
parts  of  Palestine,  where  flourishing  Christian  Churches  had  been 
established,  many  of  whose  members  had  themselves  seen  and  heard 
Christ  less  than  thirty  years  before,  how  was  he  not  fully  competent 
to  write  the  history  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  and  the  Acts  of 
his  Apostles,  especially  in  Jerusalem  and  in  the  chief  places  of  the 
Roman  empire  ? 

THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  THIRD  GOSPEL  AND  OF  THE  ACTS  OF  THE 
APOSTLES  EVIDENTLY  THE  SAME  PERSON. 

The  author  of  the  Gospel  sets  forth  the  circumstances  under  which 
he  writes,  and  the  sources  of  his  information.  "  Since,  indeed, "says 
he,  "many  have  undertaken  to  arrange  a  narrative  of  those  things 
which  are  most  firmly  believed  among  us,  as  those  who  from  the  be 
ginning  were  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  delivered  them 
to  us,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  traced  up  every  thing  ac 
curately  from  the  beginning,  to  write  them  for  you  in  regular  order, 
most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  mayest  know  the  certainty  of 
the  things  in  which  thou  hast  been  instructed  "  (chap,  i,  1-4).  In 
the  beginning  of  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  author 
says:  "The  first  treatise  I  have  made,  O  Theophilus,  concerning 
clear  proofs  of  all  things  which  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach 
this  identity.  untQ  t^Q  ^ay  jn  which  he  was  taken  up,  after  he  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  had  given  commands  to  the  apostles  whom  he  had 
chosen  "  (chap,  i,  1-2).  It  is  evident  from  this  latter  passage  that 
the  author  of  the  Acts  also  wrote  the  Gospel  addressed  to  Theophilus, 
who  appears  to  have  been  a  distinguished  Gentile  Christian.  The 
author  states  in  the  preface  to  his  Gospel  that  he  Derived  his  infor 
mation  from  the  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word,  and  that  he 
had  traced  up  the  history  from  the  beginning.  It  is  clear  from  this 
that  the  preface  refers  to  the  sources  for  the  history  of  Christ,  and 
has  no  reference  to  the  sources  for  the  history  of  the  apostles.  For 

1  In  Acts  xx,  5-xxviii,  the  writer,  by  using  the  plural  "  we  "  and  u  us,"  shows  that 
be  accompanied  Paul  to  Jerusalem  and  to  Rome.  Paul  and  Luke  abode  in  Pales 
tine  at  least  two  years.  Acts  xxiv,  27. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  565 

"the  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word,"  are  those  who  were  the 
eyewitnesses  of  Christ's  life,  and  the  preachers  of  his  d9ctrines  and 
acts.  The  history  of  the  actions  of  the  apostles  the  author  derived 
partly  from  those  who  were  themselves  the  chief  actors  in  the  scenes, 
and  partly  from  his  own  personal  knowledge  as  a  companion  of  the 
Apostle  Paul. 

That  the  author  of  the  Acts  was  the  companion  of  Paul  appears 
from  Acts  xvi,  10-17  and  xx>  5~xxi,  18  ;  xxvii,  xxviii.  Lute  uuque*. 
The  writer  uses  the  first  person  plural  for  the  first  time 
when  Paul  is  at  Troas.1  After  Paul  "  had  seen  the  vis-  panion. 
ion,  immediately  we  endeavoured  to  go  into  Macedonia,  assuredly 
gathering  that  the  Lord  had  called  us  for  to  preach  the  Gospel 
unto  them  "  (chapter  xvi,  10).  The  writer  accompanies  Paul  to 
Philippi,  and  speaks  of  the  party  there  in  the  first  person  plural : 
"The  same  followed  Paul  and  us"  (chap,  xvi,  17).  After  the  ar 
rest  of  Paul  and  Silas  at  Philippi,  the  first  person  plural  does  not 
again  appear  until  about  six  years  afterward,  when  Paul,  pass 
ing  through  Macedonia  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem,  is  accompanied 
by  several  fellow-travellers,  who,  "going  before,  tarried  for  us  at 
Troas.  And  we  sailed  away  from  Philippi,"  etc.  (chapter  xx,  5,  6). 
After  this  we  find  that  the  writer  continues  to  use  the  first  person 
plural  until  he  arrives  with  Paul  in  Jerusalem,  and  they  visit  James 
(chap,  xxi,  18).  In  the  account  of  the  charges  brought  against  Paul 
at  Jerusalem,  and  his  defence,  there  is  no  place  for  the  historian  to 
introduce  himself,  and,  accordingly,  the  first  person  plural  disap 
pears  until  Paul  has  appealed  to  Caesar,  when  he  again  appears  in 
the  history :  "And  when  it  was  determined  that  we  should  sail  into 
Italy.  ...  we  launched,  ...  we  touched,"  etc.  This  use  of  the  first 
person  plural  is  continued  until  Paul  arrives  in  Rome,  in  whose  com 
pany  the  writer  places  himself  by  remarking :  "  When  we  came  to 
Rome  "  (chap,  xxviii,  16). 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  first  person  plural  ceases  first  at 
Philippi,  and  that  when,  six  years  afterward,  this  same  person  in  com 
pany  with  Paul  leaves  Philippi,  the  use  of  the  "  we  "  is  resumed  (comp. 
Acts  xvi,  17  with  xx,  5,  6).  Is  it  not  clear  from  all  this  that  the  au 
thor  of  the  Acts  was  the  companion  of  Paul  during  a  great  part  of 
his  travels  ? 

Here  the  question  arises,  Who  is  this  companion  of  the  apostle,  the 
Author  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  also  of  the  third  Gospel  ?  Now  we 
know  that  Luke  was  Paul's  fellow-labourer,  and  it  appears  from  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  already  quoted,  that  Luke  was  with  him  at  Rome 

1  Alexandria-Troas,  a  city  on  the  coast  of  the  Trojan  Plains,  about  seven  miles 
south-east  of  Tenedos.  See  Strabo,  lib.  xiii,  581-616. 


56G  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

some  time  after  A.  D.  60.  About  this  time  also  the  companion  of  Paul 
in  his  travels  was  in  Rome,  as  appears  from  the  Acts,  so  that  it  is  clear 
that  Luke  may  have  been  that  companion.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  either  of  a  positive  or  negative  character,  incon 
sistent  with  the  hypothesis  that  Luke  was  this  fellow-traveller.  We 
have  seen  that  in  three  Epistles  of  Paul,  written  from  Rome  after  his 
arrival  there,  he  calls  "  Luke  the  beloved  physician  "  (Col.  iv,  14),  lis 
*  fellow-labourer  "  (Phil.  24),  and  speaks  of  him  as  the  only  person 
with  him  (2  Tim.  iv,  n).  Paul  and  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  as  appears 
from  his  use  of  the  first  person  plural,  first  met  at  Troas,  and  trav 
elled  together  as  far  as  Philippi,  a  distance  of  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty  miles.  After  this  short  acquaintance  with  Paul  he  does  not 
meet  him  again  until  about  six  years  later,  when  at  Philippi  he  joins  * 
Paul,  accompanies  him  to  Jerusalem,  and  afterward  to  Rome.  Dur 
ing  both  of  these  periods,  when  the  writer  (Luke)  was  with  the  apos 
tle,  the  latter  addressed  no  Epistles  to  the  Churches.  Is  it,  then,  strange 
that  he  does  not  mention  Luke  except  in  some  of  the  Epistles  writ 
ten  from  Rome  ?  It  is  true  that  Paul  wrote  2  Corinthians  from 
Macedonia,  after  he  had  become  acquainted  with  Luke,  but  the 
apostle  does  not  give  the  names  of  any  persons  who  salute  the  Corin 
thians,  but  in  a  general  term  he  says,  "All  the  saints  salute  you." 
Bleek  supposes  that  Timothy  was  the  writer  of  the  sections  in 
which  the  first'person  plural  is  used,  but  this  is  refuted  by 
the  history  itself,  in  which  the  "  we  "  and  the  "  us  "  exclude 
him.  In  chap,  xx,  4-6  it  is  stated  :  "  There  accompanied  him  (Paul) 
Sopater,  son  of  Pyrrhus,  of  Bercea ;  and  of  the  Thessalonians,  Aristar- 
chus  and  Secundus ;  and  Gaius  of  Derbe,  and  Timotheus ;  and  of  Asia, 
Tychicus  and  Trophimus.  These,  going  before,  tarried  for  us  at  Troas. 
And  we  sailed  away  from  Philippi,"  a  etc.  Here  the  party  to  which 
Timothy  belonged  stands  in  contrast  with  the  "us  "and  "we." 
After  Paul,  Silas,  and  Timothy  leave  Philippi  and  pass  through  Mace 
donia  as  far  as  Berea,  Paul  leaves  his  two  companions  and  passes 
by  Athens  on  his  way  to  Corinth,  where  they  afterward  join  the 
apostle,  who  labours  there  a  year  and  a  half;  and  in  his  two  Epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians,  written  from  Corinth,  Silvanus  (Silas)  and  Tim- 


1  It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  may  have  seen  Pa  ul  in 
ihe  visit  to  Macedonia  a  few  months  before  (Acts  xx,  1-3). 

"We  follow  here  the  eighth  critical  edition  of  Tischendorfs  Greek  Testament, 
which  is  supported  by  the  Codices  Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus,  the  oldest  texts.  Tre- 
gelles,  in  his  critical  edition,  retains  uxP1  *% Au/af ,  "as  far  as  Asia,"  but  puts  it  in 
brackets.  In  the  fifth  verse,  "  these  going  before  "  is,  in  Tischendorfs  edition,  otroi 
ft  7r/joe/,i96vT£f ;  in  Tregelles,  the  same,  except  that  he  has  rrpov-  instead 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  507 

Dthy  are  named  with  himself  as  addressing  them.  But  in  Actb 
xvii-xix  the  writer,  in  speaking  of  Paul,  Silas,  and  Timothy,  does 
not  '\se  the  first  person  plural ;  hence  Timothy  cannot  be  included 
in  the  "we"  in  other  parts  of  the  book.  Besides,  the  account  of 
Paul's  labours  in  connexion  with  those  of  Silas  and  Timothy  is,  for 
the  apostle's  sojourn  of  eighteen  months  in  Corinth,  exceedingly 
meagre.  This  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  Tim 
othy  wrote  memoirs  of  the  apostolic  labours  in  those  regions  which 
were  made  the  basis  of  his  history  by  the  author  of  the  Acts.  We  also 
find  the  missionary  journey  of  Paul  and  Timothy  through  Phrygia 
and  Galatia  as  far  as  Troas  despatched  in  a  few  verses  (chapter  xvi, 
4-8).  Of  this  journey  it  seems  that  Timothy  wrote  no  memoirs. 
But  how  minute  is  the  history  into  which  the  "  we  "  enters  !  How 
circumstantially  is  the  voyage  to  Rome  described!  No  one  can 
doubt  that  the  writer  was  in  the  very  midst  of  the  scenes.  Nor  do 
we  find  any  mention  of  Timothy  as  having  accompanied  Paul  to  Je 
rusalem,  and  yet  a  less  important  man,  Aristarchus,  is  named  as  sail 
ing  away  with  Paul  from  Caesarea  (chap,  xxvii,  2). 

It  is  quite  certain,  then,  that  Timothy  was  not  with  Paul  at  Jeru 
salem,  and  must  be  excluded  also  in  this  case  from  the  "we." 

Equally  untenable  is  Schwanbeck's  hypothesis  that  Silas  is  the  writ 
er  who  speaks  in  the  first  person  plural.  He  is  first  men-  SUag  not  ta_ 
tioned  in  Acts  xv,  22,  along  with  Judas,  as  "chief  men  eluded  in  the 
among  the  brethren ;  "  it  is  not  likely  that  he  furnished 
this  statement.  In  the  missionary  journeys  made  by  Paul  and  Silas 
we  can  find  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  latter  wrote  memoirs  of 
them.  We  find  no  indications  that  he  was  with  Paul  on  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem  and  voyage  to  Rome.  In  none  of  the  Epistles, 
written  from  Rome  by  Paul  after  his  arrival,  is  there  any  mention  of 
Silas  (or  Silvanus).  But  the  idea  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  found 
memoirs  of  the  labours  of  Paul  and  his  companions,  and  struck  out 
the  first  person  plural  in  some  places,  and  allowed  "  we  "  and  "  us  " 
to  stand  in  others,  in  such  a  way  that  readers  for  more  than  seven 
teen  centuries  have  supposed  it  to  be  the  author  of  the  book  who 
thus  speaks,  is  incredible.  All  this  done,  too,  in  such  a  manner  that 
after  the  "  we  "  disappears  from  the  history,  after  six  years,  it  ap 
pear  again  on  the  stage !  Nor  is  it  to  the  point  to  assert  that  in 
the  Middle  Ages  writers  sometimes  incorporated  into  their  books 
fragments  from  other  authors  without  adapting  them  to  the  rest  of 
their  work.  The  first  century  was  far  removed  in  its  literary  char 
acteristics  from  the  Middle  Ages.  Where  can  we  find  such  usage 
as  this  in  the  apostolic  age  ?  Who  doubts  that  Herodotus  and 
Strabo,  when  they  say  "  we  "  in  their  histories,  actually  describe 


538  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

what  they  themselves  heard,  saw,  or  did  ?  Or  are  we  to  suppose 
that  they  are  silently  inserting  the  documents  of  otherj  ? 

Hilgenfeld  acknowledges  that  the  sections  in  which  *  we  "  occur* 
The  actnowi-  were  written  by  Luke,  in  which  he  says  Overbeck  agrees 

fflSteia  2  with  him'  But  then  he  makes  the  author  of  the  Acts  a 
to  the  "we."  different  person  from  Luke.  But  the  most  complete 
refutation  of  the  theory  that  the  author  of  the  sections  in  which  the 
writer  uses  the  first  person  plural  is  another  person  than  the  authoi 
of  the  Acts  and  the  third  Gospel,  is  furnished  by  the  unity  of  the 
book  of  Acts  and  the  entire  similarity  of  language  in  it  and  the 
Gospel.1  As  examples  of  the  peculiar  use  of  words  in  these  books 
may  be  noticed  f\  6J6f,  the  way,  used  for  the  Christian  religion,  Acts 
ix,  2\  xix,  9,  23;  xxii,  4;  xxiv,  14,  22.  Such  a  use  of  the  word  as 
this  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  'Qdvvdofiai,  to 
be  in  pain,  occurs  in  Luke  ii,  48;  xvi,  24,  25,  and  in  Acts  xx,  38; 
nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  fO/uAeo),  to  converse  with,  oc 
curs  only  in  Luke  xxiv,  14,  15  ;  Acts  xx,  n  ;  xxiv,  26.  'Oftotfv/zadov, 
of  one  accord,  is  found  eleven  times  in  the  Acts,  from  chaps,  i,  14  to 
xix,  29  ;  nowhere  else  except  Romans  xv,  6.  In  giving  the  name 
similarity  of  of  a  person,  the  usage  in  Acts  is  to  add  dvo^an,  by 
i?uife"sgGospei  namej  tn^s  occurs  twenty-one  times,  from  chaps,  v,  i  to 
and  the  Acts,  xxviii,  7.  In  the  Gospel  of  Luke  it  is  used  five  times.  It 
is  a  peculiarity  of  the  Acts  that  an  adjective  has  frequently  a  negative 
particle  prefixed  to  assert  strongly  the  opposite :  ov  juerptwf,  not  moder 
ately,  chap,  xx,  12;  OVK  6/U'yoc,  not  a  little,  chaps,  xii,  18;  xiv,  28; 
xv,  2;  xvii,  4,  12;  xix,  23,  24;  xxvii,  20;  ov  nohkoi,  not  many,  Luke 
xv,  13 ;  Acts  i,  5  ;  ov  TroAv,  not  long,  Acts  xxvii,  14 ;  ov  fiaicodv^  not  far, 
Luke  vii,  6;  Acts  xvii,  27;  OVK  Q,GT\\LO<;,  not  undistinguished,  chap, 
xxi,  39  ;  ovx,  T]  TV%ovoa,  not  a  chance  or  common  thing,  Acts  xix,  u  ; 
xxviii,  2.  After  the  verb  einov,  to  say,  the  dative  case  is  used  with 
scarcely  an  exception  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  in  John  with  but 
few  exceptions,  without  a  preposition,  but  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and 
in  the  Acts  a  very  common  usage  is  to  put  Trpoc  after  it  with  the  ac 
cusative.  Karayye/Uw,  to  announce,  is  used  ten  times  in  Acts  iv,  2- 
xxvi,  23 ;  but  only  seven  times  in  all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament. 
Ei>fa(kfcfpi0us,  devout,  found  in  Luke  ii,  25  ;  Acts  ii,  5  ;  viii,  2  ,  xxii,  12 ; 
nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  EvayyeA,t£bpM,  to  preach  tin 
Gospel,  occurs  ten  times  in  Luke  and  fifteen  times  in  Acts;  it  is 
found  once  in  Matthew;  nowhere  else  in  the  Gospels,  though  in 
other  books  of  the  New  Testament.  T^  fyofievq,  on  the  next  day,  Luke 
xiii,  33;  Acts  xx,  15;  with  fipeoa  expressed,  Acts  xxi,  26.  This 

*  Lekebusch  devotes  more  than  forty  pages  of  his  work,  Die  Composition  uud 
Entslehung  der  Apostel  Geschichte,  in  illustration  of  this  point 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  569 


usage  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  'Evtff^vG),  to 
strengthen,  found  only  in  Luke  xxii,  43,  and  in  Acts  ix,  19.  Mev  ovv, 
occurs  twenty-five  times  in  all  parts  of  the  Acts,  once  in  Luke,  and 
five  times  only  in  all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament. 

A  peculiarity  of  the  language  of  Acts  and  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is 
the  use  of  the  accusative  with  the  infinitive  after  eyevero,  it  came  to 
pa&s,  e.  g.,  eyevero  .  .  .  dianopeveadai  avrdv  diaaTropipuv.  Luke  vi,  i  ; 
vi,  6;  xvi,  22  ;  Acts  iv,  5  ;  ix,  3,  32,  37,  43;  x,  25  ;  xiv,  i  ;  xxi,  x,  5  : 
xxii,  6;  xxvii,44;  xxviii,  8,  17.  Outside  of  these  two  books,  this  con 
struction  seems  to  be  found  only  in  Mark  ii,  23.  Winer  '  regards  this 
construction  as  an  imitation  of  the  Hebrew  TTI,  and  it  came  to  pass. 
The  use  of  rot)  with  the  infinitive  to  express  a  purpose,  as,  eio/jMte 
rov  iidvai  avv  avrotc,  he  came  in  to  remain  with  them  (Luke  xxiv,  29), 
occurs  both  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  in  the  Acts;  and  Winer"  ob 
serves,  "  This  construction  is  especially  peculiar  to  Luke  (and  Paul)." 
The  foregoing  are  but  a  portion  of  the  linguistic  peculiarities  ot 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  of  all  parts  of  the  Acts,  running  through  the 
sections  in  which  the  first  person  plural  "we  "and  "us  "occur. 
They  establish  the  unity  of  the  authorship  of  the  Acts  beyond  any 
doubt,  and  at  the  same  time  show  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  was 
also  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  he  was  a  companion  of  Paul* 
and  spent  about  two  years  in  Jerusalem  and  in  other  parts  of  Pales 
tine,  was  acquainted  with  the  Apostle  James  and  many  others  who 
had  seen  and  heard  Christ,  and  that  his  Gospel  rests  upon  the  most 
solid  foundation  as  an  authentic  history  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Lekebusch  truly  observes  that  "  an  unprejudiced  critic  must  be 
convinced  that  through  the  entire  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  The  oplnlon  of 
and  partly  also  through  the  Gospel  (of  Luke)  in  general,  Lekebusch  and 
the  same  kind  of  language  and  method  of  representation  I 
runs,  and  therefore  our  book,  independent  of  written  sources  in  gen 
eral,  is  an  original  work  that  has  flowed  from  a  single  pen.  For 
when  the  same  expressions  everywhere  recur,  when  a  great  series  of 
words  which  appear  only  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts,  or  at  least 
comparatively  very  seldom  in  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  writ 
ings,  uniformly  recur  in  all  parts;  if  definite  forms  of  words,  pecu 
liarities  of  connexion,  construction,  and  phraseology,  even  entire  sen 
tences,  recur  in  the  different  sections,  we  can  no  longer  think  of  a 
composition  of  pre-existing  written  documents  belonging  to  different 
authors  ;  and  it  is  established  *  without  doubt  that  we  must  consider 
our  writing  as  the  work  of  one  author  who  has  impressed  upon  it  a 
definite  style  and  literary  stamp."  (Zeller)." 

'New  Test.  Diction.,  339,  Eng.  Trans.  'Ibid.,  341. 

'Die  Composition  und  Entstehung  der  Apostel  Geschichte,  Gotha,  1854,  p.  79. 


570  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

Evvald1  also  expresses  his  conviction  that  Luke  was  the  author  of 
both  the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts;  that  he  was  the  companion  of 
Paul,  and  is  included  in  the  "  we"  and  "us  "  of  the  writer  of  the 
Acts.  Similar  are  the  views  of  Schneckenburger,  Meyer,  Kloster- 
mann,  Holtzmann,  and  Mangold. 

Renan  has  expressed  himself  very  clearly  on  the  same  side.  "  In 
Tb/i  opinion  of  icspect  to  Luke,"  says  he,  "there  is  little  possible 
Kfaan.  doubt.  The  Gospel  of  Luke  is  a  regular  composition 

based  upon  previous  documents.  It  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  se 
lects,  prunes,  combines.  The  author  of  the  Gospel  is  certainly  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Now  the  author  of  the 
Acts  appears  to  be  a  companion  of  St.  Paul,  a  title  which  perfectly 
suits  Luke.  I  know  that  more  than  one  objection  can  be  made  to 
this  reasoning ;  but  one  thing,  at  least,  is  beyond  doubt,  that  the  au 
thor  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  is  a  man  of  the  second 
apostolic  generation,  and  that  is  sufficient  for  our  object."  ' 

In  the  ancient  Church  there  never  was  any  doubt  that  Luke,  the 
companion  of  Paul,  wrote  the  third  Gospel.  We  have  already  seen 
the  testimonies  of  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Ori- 
gen,  and  others,  upon  this  point.  We  have  also  seen  that  Marcion, 
about  A.  D.  138  or  140,  abridged  this  Gospel,  and  made  it,  along 
with  ten  of  Paul's  Epistles — which  he  selected  and  more  or  less  cur 
tailed — his  Canon  of  Scripture.  It  is  very  evident  that  he  selected 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  because  it  was  well  known  that  this  evangelist 
was  a  companion  of  Paul.  No  other  reason  can  be  assigned  for  his 
preference. 

In  all  the  ancient  manuscripts,  in  the  ancient  versions,  this  Gos 
pel  bears  the  name  of  Luke.  In  the  Canon  of  Muratori  (about  A.  D. 
160)  it  is  attributed  to  Luke  the  companion  of  Paul.  Its  genuine 
ness  is  in  every  respect  entirely  unassailable.8 

THE    DATE    OF   ITS   COMPOSITION. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  states  that  the 
Ancient  test!  ^osPels  which  contain  the  genealogies  were  written  first, 
moniesastothe  which  fact  he  had  learned  from  the  most  ancient  pres 
byters.  Irenaeus  states  that  Luke  wrote  after  the  de 
parture  of  Peter  and  Paul,  by  which  he  seems  to  refer  to  the  death 
of  these  apostles.  It  does  not  appear  that  Luke,  when  he  wrote, 
was  acquainted  with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  was  written  some 
time  after  A.  D.  61.  As  Matthew  was  written  in  Syro-Chaldce  in 

1  Die  Drei  Erst.  Evang.  und  Apostel  Geschichte.     Zweite  halfte,  pp.  30-47 

'Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  xlix.     Paris.  1867. 

"Even  De  Wette  concedes  its  genuineness  without  hesitancy. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  571 

Palestine,  and  Luke  was  at  Rome  about  that  time,  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  would  be  unknown  to  him  if  he  wrote 
soon  after  that  apostle. 

In  his  preface  Luke  speaks  of  the  attempts  of  many  to  set  forth  a 
regular  history  of  the  teachings  and  actions  of  Christ.  But  Matthew 
in  all  probability  is  not  included  among  them.  He  clearly  states 
t'.iat  he  had  derived  his  materials  from  the  eyewitnesses  of  Christ's 
life,  and  makes  no  reference  to  information  derived  from  written 
documents,  of  which  he  stood  in  no  special  need. 

As  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ends  with  the  statement  concerning  Paul 
that  he  "  dwelt  two  whole  years  in  his  own  hired  house,  The  oplnlong  0, 
and  received  all  that  came  in  unto  him,  preaching  the  modem  critics 
kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  those  things  which  con-  ^^ 
cern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  all  confidence,  no  man  forbidding 
him,"  it  was  generally  inferred  that  the  Acts  must  have  been  written 
at  the  end  of  those  two  years,. otherwise  no  good  reason  could  be  as 
signed  for  the  abrupt  termination  of  the  history  in  that  way.  The 
Gospel  must,  in  that  case,  have  been  written  still  earlier.  Distin 
guished  modern  critics  do  not  generally  coincide  in  that  view.  De 
Wette,1  Bleek,9  and  Lekebusch,3  place  it  after  the  destruction  of  Je 
rusalem.  R£nan  remarks :  "  The  date  of  this  Gospel  can  be  deter 
mined  with  sufficient  exactness  from  considerations  drawn  from  the 
book  itself.  The  twenty-first  chapter  of  Luke,  inseparable  from  the 
rest  of  the  work,  was  certainly  written  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
but  not  very  long  after."4 

Ewald  5  places  this  Gospel  a  little  after  A.  D.  75  ;  Baur,  some  time 
after  A.  D.  70."  On  the  other  hand,  Tholuck 7  thinks  it  was  prob 
ably  written  by  Luke  while  with  Paul  in  Jerusalem  and  Caesarea 
(about  A.  D.  58-60).  Ebrard8  places  it  at  the  end  of  A.  D.  63  ; 9 
Olshausen,  before  A.  D.  66. 

The  probabilities  seem  decidedly  in  favour  of  a  date  preceding  the 

1P.  208.  'Eaileitung,  p.  320.  •  Apostelges..  p.  422. 

4  Vie  de  JesuS;  pp.  xlix,  1.  *  Die  Drei  Erst.  Evang.     Zweite  Halfte,  p.  47. 

'  Die  Drei  Erst.  Jahrhund.,  p.  73.  T  Glaubwurd.  Evang.  Geschich.,  p.  139. 

"Wissen.  Kritik.  der  Evang.  Geschichte,  p.  1,038.     3te  Auflag. 

"Hilgenfeld  places  the  Gospel  near  the  end  of  the  first  century  ;  Keim  about  100 
or  later  ;  Zcller  some  time  in  A.  D.  110-130.  Hilgenfeld  and  Zeller — perhaps,  also, 
Keim — thus  deny  that  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul  in  the  Acts,  wrote  this  Gospel 
tiut  we  have  already  shown  that  the  uniformity  of  language  in  the  Gospel,  and  in  all 
parts  of  the  Acts,  demonstrate  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  was  this  companion. 
How  could  Marcion,  about  A.  D.  138  or  140,  have  selected  this  Gospel  as  contain 
ing  the  most  authentic  teachings  of  Christ,  if  it  had  not  come  into  existence  until 
100-130  in  his  own  lifetime?  About  the  same  time  it  was  used  by  Justin  Martyr 
as  having  been  written  by  a  companion  of  the  apostles. 


572  INTRODUCTION    TO   THL    STUDY 

written  before  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  most  likely  durijig  the  im- 
tbe  fail  of  J&-  prisonment  of  Paul  in  Rome  about  A.  D.  63.  It  is  very 
probable  that  Luke  collected  materials  for  his  Gospel 
and  the  first  part  of  the  Acts  while  he  was  with  Paul  in  Jerusalem 
and  Cfesarea  (about  58-60). 

Luke  must  have  written  down  the  incidents  when  they  occurred, 
and  the  speeches  when  made,  as  recorded  in  Acts  xx,  5-xxviii ;  es- 
pecially  the  incidents  in  chaps,  xxvii  and  xxviii.  And  this  was  done, 
in  all  probability,  with  the  intention  of  writing  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles  in  connexion  with  the  history  of  Christ.  Now  what  motive  could 
there  be  for  the  postponement  of  the  publication  of  the  history  of  the 
Apostles,  especially  as  he  had  already  written  a  large  portion  of  it  ? 
And  no  reason  can  be  assigned  why  Luke  should  conclude  the  his 
tory  of  Paul  at  the  end  of  his  two  years'  imprisonment  without  stat 
ing  whether  he  was  released,  or  making  any  reference  to  the  result 
of  his  appeal  to  Caesar.  Of  course,  the  composition  of  the  Gospel 
preceded  that  of  the  Acts.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  that  requires  it  to  be  placed  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem.  Luke  speaks  in  his  preface  of  many  persons  having  attempted 
to  write  the  history  of  our  Lord;  but  this  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  more  than  thirty  years  had  elapsed  since  the  manifestation  of 
Christ.  It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  a  considerable  number  of 
persons  had  not  within  that  period  written  of  these  wonderful  events 
which  had  occurred  within  their  own  time,  especially  in  an  age  of 
so  much  literary  activity. 

In  Christ's  prophecy  concerning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it 
is  said  the  Jews  "  shall  be  led  away  captive  into  all  nations :  and 
Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of 
the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled  "  (chap,  xxi,  24).  But  this  is  scarcely  more 
definite  than  what  is  found  in  Matt,  xxii,  7,  in  the  parable  of  the 
marriage  of  the  king's  son:  "He  (the  king)  sent  forth  his  armies, 
and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  up  their  city."  Similar 
also  is  Matt,  xxi,  41.  Luke  also  represents  Christ  as  weeping  over 
Jerusalem  when  he  drew  near  and  beheld  the  city,  and  as  uttering 
the  prediction  that  Jerusalem  would  be  utterty  destroyed  by  her 
enemies  (chap,  xix,  41-44).  Are  these  tears  and  this  prophecy 
Luke's  own  manufacture  ? 

Matthew  also  states  that  Christ  foretold,  "  There  shall  not  be  left 
here  one  stone  upon  another  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down  "  (chap. 
xxiv,  2).  But  there  is  nothing  in  Luke  respecting  the  Romans,  no 
allusion  to  the  city's  having  been  already  taken  ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
there  are  passages  in  Christ's  teachings,  as  recorded  by  him,  which 
would  have  required  an  explanation  from  the  evangelist,  if  he  had 


Of  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  573 

written  only  a  few  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem — passages, 
indeed,  that  he  would  never  then  have  written  unless  constrained 
by  the  force  of  truth.  For  after  Christ  predicts  his  own  coming  in 
glory,  with  its  attendant  circumstances,  he  adds  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto 
you.  This  generation  shall  not  pass  away,  till  all  be  fulfilled  "  (chap. 
xxi,  32).  It  is  to  no  purpose  that  Hilgenfeld  tells  us  that  a  genera 
tion  may  be  seventy  '  years ;  for  Christ  says,  this  generation,  the pcopU 
now  living.  Parallel  with  this,  and  explanatory,  is  Luke  ix,  27  : 
"But  I  tell  you  of  a  truth,  there  be  some  standing  here  which  shall 
not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  And  we  find 
that  the  evangelists  do  give  explanations  of  Christ's  sayings  that 
were  misunderstood  or  needed  explanation.  As  examples,  may  be 
cited  John  ii,  21 ;  xxi,  22,  23  ;  Mark  iii,  30. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke  was  most  probably  written  at  Rome.  Je 
rome,8  however,  says  that  he  composed  it  in  the  regions  of  Achaia 
and  Bceotia.  But  the  lateness  of  this  testimony  destroys  much  of 
its  value.1 

CONTENTS   OF   LUKE  COMPARED   WITH   THOSE   OF    MATTHEW. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke  is  about  a  hundred  verses  longer  than  that  of 
Matthew.  The  chief  additions  to  what  we  have  in  the  MatterlnLuke 
latter  evangelist  are  the  following:  An  account  of  the  not  in  Mattn- 
birthof  John  the  Baptist;  several  particulars  respecting  ew* 
the  birth  of  Christ  and  his  circumcision  in  the  temple  ;  incidents 
that  occurred  when  he  was  twelve  years  of  age ;  the  date  at  which 
John  the  Baptist  commenced  his  ministry;  the  age  of  Christ  at  his 
baptism ;  bis  descent  from  Adam  (chaps,  i,  5~iii,  2,  23-38) ;  the  in 
dignation  of  the  people  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth  against  Christ, 
and  their  attempt  to  destroy  him ;  his  casting  a  devil  out  of  a  man 
in  the  synagogue  (chap,  iv,  23-30,  33-36) ;  the  raising  of  the  widow's 
son  at  Nain  (chap,  vii,  11-17);  several  particulars  respecting  the 
anointing  of  Christ  by  a  woman  (chap,  vii,  36-50) ;  the  casting  of 
seven  devils  out  of  Mary  Magdalene  (chap,  viii,  2) ;  Christ's  rebuke 
of  James  and  John,  who  wished  him  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven 
upon  the  Samaritans  who  would  not  receive  him  on  his  way  to 
Jerusalem  (chap,  ix  52-56);  the  sending  of  seventy  disciples  to 

'Herodotus  says:  Ttoee  generations  of  men  are  a  hundred  years"  (ii,  142). 
Thucydides  seems  to  ^mv^  held  the  same  view  (i,  14).  Matthew  reckons  not  g-.eatly 
different,  the  step  from  father  to  son,  fourteen  generations  from  the  Babylonian  cap 
tivity  to  Christ,  (i,  17).  'Comment,  in  Mat.  Prologus. 

*The  superscription  to  this  Gospel  in  the  Peshito-Syiiac  version  is,  "  The  Holy 
Gospel,  the  preaching  of  t.nke,  the  evangelist,  which  he  spoke  and  published  in 
Greek  in  great  Alexandria  ' 


574  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

preach  (chap,  x,  1-20) ;  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  (chap,  x, 
30-37);  the  account  of  Martha  and  Mary  (verses  38-42);  the  de 
scription  of  the  foolish  rich  man  (chap,  xi,  16-21);  the  statement 
respecting  the  slaughtering  of  the  Galileans  by  Pilate,  and  the  killing 
of  eighteen  men  by  the  falling  of  the  tower  at  Siloam,  and  the  infer 
ences  to  be  drawn  from  the  occurrences  (chap,  xiii,  1-5)  ;  the  parable 
of  the  barren  fig  tree ;  the  releasing  of  a  woman  from  an  infirmity  of 
eighteen  years'  standing  (chap,  xiii,  6-17);  Christ's  advice  to  men 
when  bidden  to  a  festival  to  take  the  lowest  seats,  and  when  making 
a  feast  to  call  in  the  poor,  the  maimed,  and  the  blind ;  the  parable 
of  the  builder  and  the  war-making  king  (chap,  xiv,  7-14;  28-33); 
the  parable  of  the  lost  pieces  of  silver ;  of  the  prodigal  son  (chap. 
xv,  8-32) ;  the  parable  of  the  unjust  steward  (chap,  xvi,  1-12) ;  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus  (chap,  xvi,  19-31);  the  healing  of  ten  lepers 
by  Christ  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  (chap,  xvii,  11-19)  5  tne  importu 
nate  widow,  the  Pharisee  and  Publican  (chap,  xviii,  1-14)  ;  Zaccheus 
the  publican;  the  lamentation  of  Christ  over  Jerusalem  when  he 
comes  within  sight  of  the  city,  and  his  prediction  of  its  utter  destruc 
tion  (chap,  xix,  2-9,  41-44) ;  the  widow's  mite  (chap,  xxi,  2) ;  the  strife 
of  the  apostles  at  the  last  supper  respecting  the  pre-eminence,  and 
Christ's  rebuke  of  them  (chap,  xxii,  24-32) ;  Christ's  address  to  the 
women  while  he  was  on  the  cross  (ch.  xxiii,  28-31) ;  the  penitent  thief 
(chap,  xxiii,  40—43) ;  several  particulars  respecting  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  especially  his  appearance  to  two  of  the  disciples  on  their 
way  to  and  at  Emmaus,  and  to  the  eleven  at  Jerusalem,  and  his  as 
cension  to  heaven  (chap.  xxiv). 

The  principal  omissions  in  Luke  of  what  is  found  in  Matthew  are 
Matter  not  in  tne  following :  The  visit  of  the  Magi;  the  flight  of  Jo- 
Luke,  but  in  seph  and  Mary  with  the  infant  Saviour  into  Egypt ;  the 
slaughter  of  the  infants  (chap,  ii)  ;  the  sermon  on  the 
mount  (chaps,  v-vii),  though  the  greatest  part  of  this  is  found  scat 
tered  through  Luke,  and  a  large  portion  is  contained  in  chapter  vi, 
20-49  ;  tne  parable  of  the  tares ;  the  treasure  hid  in  a  field  ;  the 
net  cast  into  the  sea  (Matt,  xiii,  24-30,  36-50)  ;  the  storm  at  sea  in 
which  the  disciples  are  in  great  danger,  and  in  the  midst  of  which 
Christ  comes  to  them  walking  upon  the  water  (Matt,  xiv,  20-33)  '•> 
the  complaint  made  against  the  disciples  for  eating  with  unwashed 
hands,  and  Christ's  rebuke  of  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Jews  ;  the  healing 
of  the  daughter  of  the  woman  of  Canaan  (chap,  xv,  1-28)  ;  Christ's 
promise  to  Peter, "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,"  etc.  (chap, 
xvi,  18,  19)  ;  the  tribute  money  paid  by  Christ  (chap,  xvii,  24,  27); 
the  parable  of  the  king  and  his  servants  (chap,  xviii,  23-35)  I  nearly 
all  Christ's  remarks  on  marriage  (chap,  xix,  3-12)  ;  the  parable  of  (he 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE?.  575 

vineyard  (chap,  xx,  1-16) ;  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins  (chap,  xxv 
1-13) ;  the  description  of  the  last  judgment  (chap,  xxv,  31-46) ;  the 
watch  placed  at  the  sepulchre  of  Christ  (chap,  xxvii,  62-66) ;  the 
report  of  the  Jews  that  the  disciples  stole  away  Christ's  body  while 
the  guards  slept ;  the  appearance  of  Christ  to  the  eleven  disciples  in 
Galilee  (chap,  xxviii,  11-18). 


THE    DESIGN   OF   LUKE'S   GOSPEL. 

1  uke  himself,  in  the  preface,  states  his  purpose  in  writing  the  Cos 
pel,  that  Theophilus  might  know  the  certainty  of  the  things  in  which 
he  had  been  instructed.     At  the  same  time  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  Luke  intended  his  Gospel  for  general  circulation  as  an  authen 
tic  history  of  Christ. 

The  early  fathers  regarded  Luke  as  writing  the  Gospel  preached 
by  Paul.  But  whatever  influence  this  apostle  had  over  considered  by 
him,  and  however  intimate  they  were,  Luke  did  not  de-  {^e  aatpJuii^ 
rive  the  material  of  his  narrative  from  Paul,  although  he  Gospel, 
doubtless  obtained  from  him  many  facts  for  the  Book  of  Acts.  Paul's 
account  of  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper 
(i  Cor.  xi,  24,  25)  corresponds  more  closely  with  the  account  in 
Luke  (chap,  xxii,  19,  20)  than  either  with  that  of  Matthew  or  Mark. 

In  Luke  xxi,  24,  in  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  is 
said  that  it  "shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles  until  the  times 
of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled."  Quite  similar  to  the  latter  part  of  this 
is  Romans  xi,  25  :  "  Until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in." 

Baur,  in  accordance  with  his  theory  of  irreconcilable  differences 
between  Peter  and  Paul  respecting  the  law  of  Moses,  as-  Baur's  theory 
serts  that  Luke's  Gospel  shows  "  its  Pauline  character,  rented- 
in  knowing  nothing  of  the  identity  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  with  the 
law  and  with  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  is  maintained  in  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew."1  But  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount  in  Matthew,  Christ 
revokes  the  teachings  of  Moses  in  various  passages.  Also  in  Matt. 
viii,  IT,  12,  it  is  declared  that  "many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  But  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast 
out  into  outer  darkness."  The  parables  in  Matt,  xxi,  33-43,  and  in 
xxii,  1-14,  refer  to  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles.  Christ,  in  Matt,  xi,  13,  says:  "For  all  the  prophets  and 
the  law  prophesied  until  John,"  which  clearly  indicates  a  change  of 
dispensation.  But  the  most  complete  refutation  of  Baur  and  his  fol 
lowers  is  Luke  xvi,  17:  "  It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass 

'  Die  Drei  Erst.  Jahr.,  p.  74.     Dritte  Ausgabe.     Tubingen,  1863. 


573  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail."  '     How  closely  does  this  resemble 
Matt,  v,  17,  18! 

Bauralso  represents  Luke  as  depreciating  the  other  apostles,  espe 
cially  Peter,  to  make  Paul  more  prominent.  But  this  charge  is  ut 
terly  groundless.  Luke,  it  is  true,  omits  the  declaration  of  Christ  to 
Peter,  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,"  etc.  (Matthew  xvi, 
1  8,  19).  But  Mark,  the  intimate  friend  and  companion  of  Peter,  also 
omits  this  passage.  Did  he  do  this  to  depreciate  Peter  ?  Luke,  how 
ever,  gives  Peter's  confession  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  omits  a  passage 
which  is  depreciatory  of  Peter,  but  which  is  found  both  in  Matthew 
and  Mark  :  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,"  says  Christ  to  Peter.  Both 
Matthew  and  Mark  state  that  Peter,  when  he  denied  Christ,  "  began 
to  curse  and  to  swear."  Luke  omits  this,  but  hardly  to  detract  from 
Peter.  He  also  omits  what  is  recorded  by  Matthew  (xiv,  28-31), 
Peter's  beginning  to  sink  into  the  sea  for  want  of  faith.  Nothing 
but  the  most  obstinate  prejudice  can  charge  Luke  with  an  intention 
of  detracting  from  Peter. 

THE  STATEMENT  OF  LUKE  RESPECTING  THE  TAXING  UNDER 
CVRENIUS  (CHAP.  II,  I,  2). 

"And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  there  went  out  a  decree 
from  Caesar  Augustus,  that  all  the  world  should  be  enrolled.  And 
this  enrolment  was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria." 

It  appears  from  Tacitus  that  Augustus  Caesar  had  written  with  his 
The  census  own  hand  in  a  book  "  the  number  of  citizens  and  allies 
in  pro-  'm  arms>  now  many  fleets  he  had,  how  many  kingdoms, 


fane  authors,  provinces,  tribute,  or  revenues,"  3  etc.  Cassiodorus,9  in 
the  sixth  century,  states  that  "  in  the  times  of  Augustus  the  Roman 
world  was  divided  into  domains,  and  described  by  a  census."  Sui- 
das  states  that  "  Augustus  Caesar,  the  emperor,  selected  twenty  of 
the  best  men,  and  of  the  best  character,  and  sent  them  over  all  the 
land  of  his  subjects,  by  whom  he  made  a  census,  both  of  men  and 
property,"4  etc.  Dion  Cassius,  who  wrote  of  Roman  affairs  in  the 

'This  is  the  reading  of  the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  and  Alexandrian  Codices,  of  the 
Peshito-Syriac  version,  old  Latin  MSS.  of  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  Memphittc 
about  A.  D.  200,  and  also  of  the  Gothic,  and  it  appears  to  be  found  in  all  the  man 
uscripts  and  versions.  How  futile  it  is,  then,  for  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  to  pre 
fer  a  reading  which,  instead  of  "  the  law,"  substitutes  "  my  words,"  referring  then 
to  Christ,  which,  they  say,  Marcion  had.  But  as  Marcion  rejected  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  he  could  not  allow  the  text  in  Luke  to  stand,  but  must  have  altered  it,  or 
dropped  it,  as  he  did  other  parts  of  Luke  which  did  not  suit  him. 

9  Cum  proferri  libellum  recitarique  jussit  .  .  .  quantum  civium  sociorumque  in 
tnis  :  quot  classes,  regna,  provinciae,  tributa,  aut  nectigalia,  etc.  —  Annal.,  lib.  i,  cap.  xi. 

*  Variarum,  liber  iii,  epistola  lii.  4  Article,  ' 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  577 

first  part  of  the  third  century,  states  that  Augustus,  for  the  purpose 
of  raising  revenue,  "  sent  men  to  take  a  census  (aTroypai/Wjuevovf)  of 
the  property  of  individuals  and  of  the  cities." '  There  can,  then,  be 
no  doubt  that  Augustus  Caesar  took  a  census  of  the  empire,  and  it 
is  very  probable,  independent  of  Luke's  authority,  that  a  census  of 
Judea  was  taken  in  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great, 
nbout  the  time  that  Christ  was  born.  Herod,  having  marched  an 
army  into  Arabia  to  redress  injuries  he  had  received  from  plunderers, 
was  s")  misrepresented  to  Augustus  that,  Josephus  says,  the  emperor 
wrote  him  a  bitter  letter,  the  substance  of  which  was  that  "  he  had 
formerly  treated  him  as  a  friend,  but  now  he  will  treat  him  as  a 
subject." a  After  this  Herod  sent  splendid  gifts  to  Augustus,  which  he 
sent  back  to  Herod  without  taking  any  notice  of  them,3  **  and  he 
was  compelled  to  submit  to  all  the  injuries  which  he  (the  emperor) 
offered  him."  Sometime  after  this,  and  about  the  date  when  Christ 
was  born,  we  find  Josephus  stating,  "  that  the  whole  Jewish  nation  took 
an  oath  that  they  would  assuredly  bear  good-will  to  Caesar,  and  to 
the  king's  estate,  but  these  men  (the  Pharisees)  did  not  take  the 
oath,  being  over  six  thousand,  and  they  were  fined  by  the  king."* 

Two  points,  then,  seem  clearly  established,  that  Augustus  took  a 
census  of  the  empire,  and  that  about  the  time  Christ  was  born  there 
was  a  registration  of  the  Jewish  people  proceeding  from  him. 

The  next  point  to  be  considered  is,  in  what  way  Cyrenius  (Quiri- 

nius)  was  related  to  it  ?     After  the  banishment  of  Arche-   „ 

x  iio  reunion  or 

laus,  ethnarch  of  Judea,  Samaria  and  Idumea  (about  cyreniustotne 
A.  D.  6),  Judea  became  a  Roman  province,  and  was  an 
nexed  to  Syria,  and  Cyrenius  was  sent  as  governor  of  Syria,  and  took 
a  census  of  the  whole  province.  This  census  was  made,  according 
to  Josephus,  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  after  the  battle  of  Actium  ' 
(B.  C.  31),  consequently  A.  D.  6  or  7.  It  is  to  this  census  that  Luke 
refers  in  Acts  v,  37  :  "  After  this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Galilee  in  the 
days  of  the  taxing  "  (census).  To  this  man,  also,  Josephus  refers  as 
attempting  to  raise  a  sedition  among  the  Jews  during  the  census  of 
Cyrenius.  He  calls  him  Judas  the  Galilean,  and  Gaulanite.8 

It  is  very  evident,  then,  that  Luke  was  acquainted  with  this  cen 

sus,  and  it  is  also  clear  that  he  does  not  refer  to  it  in  his  r 

. .  .  Proper  render- 

Gospel  (chap,  ii,  2).     The  most  natural  rendering  of  the   ing  of  chaptei 

passage  is:  "This  census  was  the  first  of  Cyrenius,  the  U'2' 

'Lib.  Ivi,  cap.  28.  "Antiq.,  xvi,  9.  "Ibid. 

4  Ilavrof  yovv  TOV  lovtiaiKov  j3EJ3aiuaavTO£  6C  opuuv  %  ftrjv  evvvrjaai  Kalaapi,  not  rojf 
Trpdypaat,  nitie  ol  avdpec  OVK  upoaav,  ovrtf  {>7rep  f^a/cto^tAtof  nal 
fyutuaavTOf  xP*ifiaaiv- — Antiquities,  lib.  xvii,  cap.  ii,  4. 

'Antiq.,  xviii,  cap.  ii,  I.  'Ibid.,  xviii,  cap.  i,  I.  6. 

Voi,  I.— 37 


578  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

governor  of  Syria."1  From  this  it  is  evident  that  Luke  regards  the 
census  made  at  the  birth  of  Christ  as  being  earlier  than  that  made 
after  the  banishment  of  Archelaus.  But  was  Cyrenius  governor  of 
Syria  at  the  birth  of  Christ  ?  Augustus  Zumpt,  in  his  list  of  the  gov 
ernors  of  Syria,  which  Merivale  adopts  in  his  History  of  the  Romans 
under  the  Empire,"  makes  Cyrenius  (Quirinius)  proconsul  of  Syria 
touicc;  first,  from  B.  C.  4  to  i,  and  from  A.  D.  6  to  n.  He  was  thus 
proconsul  or  governor  of  Syria  for  the  first  time  about  the  time  of 
Christ's  birth.  At  all  events  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  Cyre 
nius  having  been  associated  with  Saturninus,  or  some  other  procon 
sul,  in  enrolling  the  Jewish  people  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Christ, 
although  he  may  not  have  been  governor  at  that  time,  just  as  we 
might  speak  of  President  Grant's  capture  of  Vicksburg. 

Tholuck  3  proposed  to  translate  the  Trpovny,  first,  before,  and  render 
the  passage  :  "  This  census  was  made  before  Cyrenius  was  governor  of 
Syria."  This  use  of  Trpom/  for  Trpdrepa,  is  not  without  examples.  So 
translated  it  would  distinguish  the  census  at  the  birth  of  Christ  from 
the  well-known  one  that  occurred  about  ten  years  later.  But  this 
rendering  of  the  passage  is  not  to  be  favoured,  since  it  is  not  quite 
natural,  though  it  is  adopted  by  so  great  a  scholar  as  Ewald.4 

The  chief  point  in  the  history  is  the  fact  of  the  census  at  the  time 
of  Christ's  birth.  Less  important  is  the  officer  who  had  charge  of 
it.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  question  the  accuracy  of  Luke  upon 
this  point.  The  accurate  knowledge  which  he  shows  every-where  in 
the  Acts  respecting  Greek  and  Roman  history  and  geography  is  very 
remarkable,  and  should  inspire  us  with  confidence  in  his  statements, 
though  unconfirmed  by  other  testimonies. 

THE   STATEMENT   OF    LUKE   RESPECTING   LYSANIAS. 

In  Luke  iii,  i,  in  a  statement  of  the  different  rulers  who  held  office 
in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  when  John  the  Baptist  began 
to  preach,  it  is  added  :  "  And  Lysanias  being  the  tetrarch  of  Abi 
lene."  Josephus  mentions  a  Lysanias,  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  put  to 
death  about  B.  C.  36  by  Antony  to  gratify  Cleopatra.5  But  he  names 
no  Lysanias  as  tetrarch  about  the  time  that  Christ  began  his  minis 
try,  and  Strauss  has  regarded  this  second  Lysanias  of  Luke  as  a  fie- 
lion.  A  few  years  ago,  however,  an  inscription  was  found  neai 
Baalbec,  "containing  a  dedication  of  a  memorial  tablet  or  statue 


1  The  Greek  is,  'Avrjy  dfroypa^  kytvtro  irpuTij  q-yepovevovTOf  1%  Sup/af  Kvpijvioi. 
•Vol.  vi,  261.          *  Glaubwiirdig.  der  Evan.  Gesch.,  pp.  178-188.    Zweite  Auflag 
*  He  translates,  "  This  census  todk  place  much  earlier  than  the  time  when  Qui- 
nnius  was  governor"  —  Geschich.  Christus  und  sein.  Zeit.,  p.  205. 
6Antiq.,  xv,  cap.  iv,  I 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  579 

tc  '  Zenodorus,  son  of  the  tetrarch  Lysanias,  and  to  Lysanias,  her 
children '  by  (apparently),"  says  Rawlinson,  "  the  widow  of  the  first 
and  the  mother  of  the  second  Lysanias.  Zenodorus  was  already 
known  as  having  succeeded  the  first  Lysanias  in  his  government. 
It  is  thus  clear  that  there  were,  as  previously  suspected,  two  persons 
of  the  name,  a  father  and  a  son,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason 
for  doubting  St.  Luke's  statement,  that  the  latter  was  tetrarch  of 
Abilene  in  the  fifteenth  of  Tiberius."1  Renan,9  while  remarking 
that  the  mention  of  Lysanias  by  Luke  may  be  an  error,  yet  says, 
"The  accuracy  of  the  evangelist  on  this  point  can  be  defended." 
The  jLysanias  of  Luke  is,  doubtless,  the  ruler  of  that  name  men 
tioned  by  Josephus,  who  states  that  Claudius  Caesar  "  bestowed  upon 
Agrippa  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip,  and  Batanaea,  and  gave  him  also 
Trachonitis  with  Abila  (Abilene).  This  had  been  the  tetrarchy  of 
Lysanias." ' 


J 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    JOHN. 
THE   APOSTLE  JOHN. 

OHN  the  beloved  disciple  was  a  son  of  Zebedee,  and,  it  would 
seem,  a  younger  brother  of  James,  as  he  is,  with  scarcely  an  ex 
ception,  named  after  James.4  It  appears  from  a  com-  Notlcesof  Jobn 
parison  of  Matthew  xxvii,  56  with  Mark  xv,  40,  that  his  in  the  New 
mother  was  Salome.  When  called  by  Christ  at  the  be-  Tefltament- 
ginning  of  his  ministry  to  follow  him,  John  was  engaged  in  fishing  in 
the  sea  of  Galilee,  with  his  brother  James  and  his  father  Zebedee 
(Matt,  iv,  21  ;  Mark  i,  19).  As  mention  is  made  of  their  hired  serv 
ants  (Mark  i,  20),  it  appears  that  they  conducted  the  fishing  business 
on  quite  a  large  scale,  and  they  may  have  possessed  considerable 
property.  Our  Saviour  gave  him  and  his  brother  James  the  name  of 
Boanerges — Sons  of  Thunder — on  account,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  of 
their  demonstrative  power  and  impetuosity.6  He  was  one  of  the  three 

1  Prof  Rawlinson's  Lecture  on  Modern  Scepticism,  pp.  301,  302.     He  refers  to 
Kraft's  Topografie  Jerusalems.     Inscrip.  29. 

"Vie  de  Jesus,  Ixxxiv.     He  refers  to  Mission  de  Phdnicie,  p.  317,  etc. 
'Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  vii,  I. 

*  This  James  was  put  to  death  by  Herod  Agrippa  about  A.  D.  45.    Acts  xii,  a. 

*  Their  wl<,h  to  have  fire  called  down  from  heaven  upon  the  ankind  Samaritans 
(Luke  ix,  5^    aiay  bt  c?ted  as  an  instance  of  this. 


580  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

disciples  who  enjoyed  the  greatest  intimacy  with  Christ.  In  company 
with  Peter  and  James  he  witnessed  his  transfiguration ;  in  his  agony 
in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  Jesus  had  with  him  Peter,  James,  and 
John  only.  It  is  very  probable  that  John  was  one  of  the  two  disci 
ples  mentioned  in  John  i,  40.  He  sat  next  to  Christ  at  table,  and 
was  said  to  lean  upon  his  bosom  or  breast  (John  xiii,  23,  25  ;  xxi,  20), 
and  is  called  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  (John  xiii,  23  ;  xix,  26; 
xx,  2  ;  xxi,  7,  20).  He  is,  doubtless,  the  disciple  who  followed  Jesus 
after  his  arrest,  and  went  into  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  and 
brought  in  Peter  (chap,  xviii,  15,  16).  He  was  at  the  cross  when 
Christ  was  crucified  (chap,  xix,  35),  and  took  the  mother  of  Jesus 
thence  to  his  own  home  (chap,  xix,  27).  After  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  he  appears  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  account  of  the 
healing  of  the  lame  man  by  Peter  and  himself  (chaps,  iii,  iv),  and  in 
the  mission  to  Samaria,  to  which  Peter  and  himself  were  sent.  After 
preaching  the  Gospel  to  a  large  portion  of  the  Samaritans,  they  both 
returned  to  Jerusalem  (chap,  viii,  14-25).  After  this  John  disap 
pears  from  the  Acts.  From  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  it  is  seen 
that  when  that  apostle  visited  Jerusalem  about  A.  D.  52  John  was 
still  there,  and  he  is  classed  with  Peter  and  James  "  as  being  con 
sidered  pillars  "  (chapter  ii,  9)  in  the  Church.  When  Paul  went  to 
Jerusalem  about  A.  D.  58,  in  company  with  Luke,  they  went  in  unto 
James  (Acts  xxi,  18),  but  no  mention  is  made  of  John.  This,  how 
ever,  does  not  prove  that  he  was  not  in  Jerusalem — still  less  that  he 
was  not  in  Palestine. 

John  probably  left  Palestine  and  took  up  his  abode  in  Ephesus  a 
ttenseus's  ac-  snort  ^me  before  the  Jewish  war.  For  it  is  not  at  all 
nount  of  the  likely  that  he  was  in  Ephesus  while  Paul  abode  there 
Apostle  John.  (A  D  54_57)  It  is  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the 

early  Church  that  John  spent  the  last  part  of  his  life  at  Ephesus,  and 
this  testimony  is  of  such  a  character  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  re 
specting  the  fact. 

Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202),  born,  in  all  probability, 
about  A.  D.  130,  in  Asia  Minor,  speaks  of  the  testimony  of  the  "  pres 
byters  in  Asia  who  had  associated  with  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord," 
and  states  that  John  remained  in  the  Church  at  Ephesus  until  the  times 
of  Trajan  as  a  true  witness  of  the  tradition  of  the  apostles.1  This  em 
peror  began  to  reign  A.  D.  98.  In  his  Epistle  to  Florinus,  Irenaeus 
states :  "  When  I  was  yet  a  boy  I  saw  thee  in  Lower  Asia  with  Poly- 
carp,  behaving  splendidly  in  the  royal  court,  and  endeavouring  to 
gain  his  approbation.  For  I  remember  the  things  that  happened 
then  better  than  those  which  have  occurred  recently.  For  what  we 
1  Contra  Hsereses,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxii,  5  ;  iii,  cap.  iii,  4. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  681 

learn  in  boyhood,  growing  up  along  with  the  soul,  becomes  one  wilh 
it,  so  that  I  can  name  both  the  place  in  which  the  blessed  Polycarp 
sat  and  discoursed ;  his  going  out  and  his  coming  in ;  the  charac 
ter  of  his  life,  and  the  form  of  his  person,  and  the  addresses  which 
he  made  to  the  people;  how  he  related  his  intercourse  with  John  and 
with  others  who  had  seen  the  Lord  ,  how  he  repeated  their  words,  and 
what  things  he  had  heard  from  them  concerning  the  Lord,  both  con 
cerning  his  miracles  and  his  doctrine,  as  Polycarp  ha3  received  them 
from  the  eyewitnesses  of  the  word  of  life — all  these  things  he  related 
in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures."1     Irenaeus  also   states  that  Poly 
carp  was  appointed  bishop  of  Smyrna  by  the  apostles.3     Also  in  his 
letter  to  Victor,  the  Roman  bishop,  he  says  that  Polycarp  had  lived 
in  intimacy  with  John  the  disciple  of  our  Lord.8     Irenceus  further 
states:  "There  are  some  who  heard  from  him  (Polycarp)  that  John 
the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  having  gone  to  bathe  in  Ephesus,  and  seeing 
Cerinthus  within,  he  leaped  forth  from  the  bath  without  bathing,  but 
exclaimed,  Let  us  fly,  lest  the  bathing-room  fall  upon  us,  since  Ce 
rinthus,  the  enemy  of  the  truth,  is  within.'**     Even  if  the  incident 
never  occurred,  it  shows  at  least  that  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  it  was  notorious  that  the  Apostle  John  had  lived  at 
Ephesus. 

Another  most  important  witness  to  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  John 
spent  the  latter  part  of  his  life  in  Ephesus  .is  Polycrates,  An  account  of 
bishop  of  that  city  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century.  Jobn  by  Poiy- 
In  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  c 
(about  A.  D.  190  or  195),  on  the  celebration  of  the  passover,  he  says  : 
"  For  in  Asia  great  lights  have  gone  out.  .  .  .  Also  John,  who  leaned 
upon  the  breast  of  the  Lord,  who  was  a  priest  wearing  the  mitre,  a 
martyr  and  a  teacher — this  one  sleeps  in  Ephesus." '  Polycrates,  in 
this  epistle,  says,  "  I  have  been  in  the  Lord  sixty-five  years."  By 
this  we  are  probably  to  understand  that  he  was  made  a  disciple  in 
infancy,  and  the  number  expresses  his  age  at  the  time  of  writing. 
He  must,  accordingly,  have  been  born  about  A.  D.  125  or  130.  He 
also  states  that  seven  of  his  relatives  had  been  bishops,  some  of  whom 
he  had  succeeded.  It  seems  quite  clear  from  this  that  he  must  have 
known  persons  who  were  acquainted  with  John,  and,  as  the  apostle's 
grave  was  in  the  city,  there  could  be  no  mistake  about  the  matter, 
nor  could  John  the  presbyter  be  confounded  with  the  Apostle  John 
by  a  bishop  at  Ephesus  in  the  second  century. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished  in  the  latter  part  of  the 

'In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.,  lib.  v,  cap.  xx.         'Contra  Haer.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  3. 
•In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxiv.      *  Contra  Haer.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  3,  sec.  4. 
*  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxiv. 


S82  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

second  century  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  third,  states  that  "  John 
Notices  of  the  the  apostle  returned  from  the  isle  of  Patmos  to  Ephesus 
after  the  death  of  the  tyrant,"1  and  he  relates  an  inci- 
dent  in  the  life  of  the  apostle  which  occurred  in  a  town 
near  Ephesus,  and  was  carefully  transmitted. 

Origen  also  states  that  John  abode  in  Asia,  and  died  in  Ephesus.* 
At  the  end  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  is 
the  superscription  :  "  The  end  of  the  holy  Gospel,  the  preaching  of 
John  the  evangelist  which  he  published  in  Greek  in  Ephesus."  This 
testimony  is  valuable  as  coming  from  a  version  of  the  second  century 
used  in  Northern  Syria  and  Mesopotamia,  regions  not  remote  from 
Ephesus. 

Liitzelberger,  in  1840,  in  his  attack  on  John's  Gospel,  denied  that 
rue  silence  of  this  apostle  spent  the  latter  part  of  his  life  in  Asia  Minor, 
regarcHo  John  basing  tne  denial  upon  the  silence  of  Ignatius  in  epis- 
considered.  ties  in  which  a  reference  to  John  was  to  be  expected,  if 
he  had  lived  there,  especially  in  Ephesus.  But  the  argument  a  silen- 
tie  is  often  a  very  delusive  one,  and  avails  nothing  in  opposition  to 
strong  positive  testimony.  The  Epistles  of  Ignatius  have  themselves 
been  a  subject  of  much  controversy,  and  they  exist  in  a  shorter  and 
in  a  longer  text  in  Greek.  Cureton  translated  and  published,  from  an 
ancient  Syriac  text  brought  from  the  Nitrian  desert  in  Egypt,  three 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  —  to  Polycarp,  the  Ephesians,  and  the  Romans— 
in  a  form  still  shorter  than  the  shortest  Greek  text.  These  three 
epistles,  in  their  shortest  text,  as  they  appear  in  the  Syriac,  Cureton 
thinks  are  the  only  genuine  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  and  in  this  judgment 
he  is  most  probably  correct. 

The  only  one  of  these  Epistles  from  which  any  reference  to  the 
Apostle  John  could  be  expected  is  that  to  the  Ephesians,  as  this 
apostle  had  died  there  fifteen  or  twenty  years  before  the  epistle 
was  written.  But  there  is  no  reference  in  it  to  any  apostle,8  though 
Paul  labored  there  for  three  years.  But  why,  in  an  epistle  of  two 
or  three  pages,  hastily  written,  should  he  refer  to  the  Apostle  John  ? 
It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  in  an  epistle  to  Polycarp,  bishop  ot 
Smyrna,  who  had  been  a  hearer  of  John,  that  he  should  allude  to 
this  fact. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  Ignatius  says  :  "  I  do  not  charge 
you,  like  Peter  and  Paul,  who  are  apostles."  But  this  does  not  indi 
cate  that  Paul  had  been  in  Rome,  for  the  language  could  be  ex 
plained  very  naturally  as  referring  to  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
But  as  Peter  addressed  no  epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  inference 


n-Xovcriof,  What  ridt  man  is  saved?  xlii. 
In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  I.          8The  Greek  text,  however,  refers  to  Paul. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  583 

would  be  that  he  preached  to  them.  There  is  in  the  epistle  of  Ig 
natius  nothing  to  indicate  that  these  two  apostles  had  suffered  mar 
tyrdom  at  Rome.  Yet  how  natural  for  him  would  be  the  language : 
"  I  am  coming  to  Rome  to  die  for  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  Peter 
and  Paul  did."  Does  the  absence  of  all  reference  to  their  martyr 
dom  in  Rome  prove  that  it  never  occurred  ? 

GENUINENESS    OF   THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING   TO  JOHN. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Eusebius  and  Origen  knew  of  no  op 
position  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  small 
party  of  Alogians  at  Thyalira  about  A.  D.  180,  it  was  received  by 
the  whole  Church  throughout  the  ancient  world  as  the  undoubted 
writing  of  that  apostle,  the  beloved  disciple  who  leaned  upon  the 
besom  of  the  Lord. 

No  doubt  was  expressed  respecting  the  genuineness  of  this  Gospel 
until  the  year  1792,  when  an  English  deist  by  the  name  Modern  attacks 

of  Evanson  attacked  it  with  feeble  arguments.  About  onthegenuine- 
,  ...  .  _  ness  of  John'« 

the  same  time  doubts  respecting  it  arose  in  Germany.  Gospel  —  Bret- 
But  the  first  systematic  and  able  attack  was  made  by  8ChneIder- 
Bretschneider,  a  German  theologian,  in  Latin  '  in  1820.  He  was  an 
swered  by  several  German  scholars,  whose  vindication  of  the  gen 
uineness  of  this  Gospel  seemed  entirely  satisfactory.  On  this  point 
Tholuck  remarks :  "  The  conviction  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gos 
pel  of  John  in  the  consciousness  of  all  German  theologians  took  only 
the  so  much  deeper  root,  after  Bretschneider  left  the  field  with  the 
confession  that  he  was  vanquished ;  and  nowhere,  perhaps,  except 
in  the  Introduction  of  Dr.  De  Wette,  was  there  still  heard  an  echo 
of  doubt."3 

In  1835  Strauss,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus,  resumed  and  sharpened  the 
arguments  that  had  been  used  by  Bretschneider,  and  as-  Strauss,  LQt- 
sailed  this  Gospel.  But  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Life 
of  Jesus  he  acknowledged  that  through  the  many  re-  pel. 
plies  that  had  been  given,  especially  by  Neander  and  De  Wette,  "  he 
had  again  become  doubtful  respecting  his  doubts  of  the  genuineness  of 
this  Gospel."  In  the  fourth  edition,  however,  he  retracted  this  con 
fession,  and  returned  resolutely  to  his  doubts,  principally  as  he  him 
self  confesses,  because  "  without  them  one  could  not  escape  from 
believing  the  miracles  of  Christ."  In  his  Life  of  Jesus  for  the  Ger 
man  people,  published  in  1864,  he  still  denies  the  genuineness  of 
this  Gospel,  and  greatly  approves  of  Baur's  views.  Strauss'  attack 
was  followed  by  that  of  Liitzelberger  in  1840,  who  asserted  that  this 

*  Probabilia  de  Evang.  et  Epp.  Joannis  Apos.,  etc. 

'  Glaubwiirdigkeii  Evang.  Geschichte,  Zweite  Aufl.,  1838,  pp.  267,  268. 


584  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

Gospel  was  written  at  Edessa  A.  D.  130-135.  In  the  following  yeai 
Schwegler  assailed  it,  and  referred  its  composition  to  about  150.  In 
1844  it  was  assailed  by  Baur,  who  places  its  origin  in  Asia  Minor 
or  in  Alexandria,  perhaps,  about  170.  In  the  following  year  Zel- 
ler  published  his  views,  in  which  he  declared  his  agreement  with 
Baur. 

Hilgenfeld1  also  denies  its  genuineness,  and  assigns  it  to  130-140. 
So  does  Volkmar,  who  places  it  about  155,  and  Scholten9  about  150. 
Keim*  supposes  that  it  was  composed  probably  about  130.  A  few 
German  scholars  adopted  what  Bleek  calls  the  Hypothesis  of  Sep 
aration  (Theilung's  hypothese),  that  is,  they  distinguish  in  this  Gos 
pel  a  genuine  historical  element  which  they  separate  from  the  un- 
historical.  To  this  class  belong  Weisse,  Schweizer,  Schenkel,  and 
Re"nan. 

It  must  be  observed  that  the  opponents  of  the  Gospel  of  John  be- 
The  defenders  long  chiefly  to  the  Tubingen  school,  at  the  head  of 
oe^T SStai  which  stood  Baur-  But  this  Gospel  has  not  lacked  able 
Gospel.  defenders  not  only  among  the  evangelical  theologians> 

but  also  among  those  of  the  sceptical  school.  Of  those  who  have 
written  in  defence  of  this  Gospel  since  the  attack  of  Bretschneider 
in  1820,  may  be  named  Stein,  Calmberg,  Hemsen,  Crome,  Hauff, 
Hug,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Schott,  Credner,  Lticke,  Tholuck,  Ebrard, 
Bunsen,  Bleek,  Ewald,  Mayer,  Luthardt,  Hengstenberg,  Norton, 
Baumgarten,  Schleiermacher,  Neander,  Hase,  Tischendorf,  Riggen- 
bach,  De  Groot,  Oosterzee,  Fisher,  and  Beyschlag. 

De  Wette,  in  the  preface  to  the  fifth  edition  of  his  Introduction  to 
the  New  Testament,  written  in  1847,  about  two  years  before  his 
death,  remarks  :  "  It  will  be  found  that  in  respect  to  the  Gospel  of 
John  I  have  placed  myself  still  more  than  formerly  upon  the  side  of 
its  defenders,  although  I  am  still  far  from  the  confidence  of  my 
friend  Bleek."4  This  is  a  valuable  testimony  from  so  able  and 
sceptical  a  critic,  who  was  by  no  means  inclined  toward  orthodoxy. 

In  speaking  of  the  attacks  that  have  been  made  upon  the  genuine 
ness  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  De  Wette  remarks  :  "  They  have  been  es 
pecially  directed  against  the  external  testimony  in  its  favour.  On 
the  one  hand,  the  witnesses  have  been  regarded  with  sceptical 
eyes,  and  spitefully  criticised;  on  the  other,  there  have  been  de 
manded  older  and  more  definite  witnesses  than  could  be  justly  ex 
pected.  In  this  respect  our  Gospel  does  not  stand  worse,  indeed 
better,  than  the  first  three,  and  than  the  writings  of  Paul." ' 

1  Finl.,  p.  738.   Leipzig,  1875.      a  Die  alt.  Zeugnisse,  u.  s.  w.,  by  Manchot,  p.  186 
s  Geschich.  Jesu,  p.  41.    1873.      *  Einl.,  besorgt  von  Messner  und  Liinemann.  1860 
*  Einleitung,  p.  223. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  585 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  especially  obnoxious  to  a  certain  class  of 
critics  on  account  of  its  profound  spiritual  character,  and  because  it 
sets  forth  so  clearly  the  divinity  of  Christ.  To  others,  it  is  offensive 
because,  if  genuine,  it  establishes  the  miracles  of  Christ — since  they 
are  related  in  that  case  by  an  eyewitness — and  overthrows  their  pan 
theistic  conceptions  of  the  universe. 

The  theory  of  the  assailants  of  John's  Gospel,  that  it  was  written 
sometime  during  A.  D.  125-170,  is,  in  view  of  the  facts  Untenableness 
of  the  case,  the  most  preposterous  that  has  ever  been  of  the  sceptical 
advanced  in  the  annals  of  historical  criticism.  For  it  is 
an  indisputable  fact,  that  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
this  Gospel  was  received  throughout  the  whole  Christian  world  as 
the  undoubted  writing  of  the  Apostle  John.  How  could  this  have 
come  to  pass  had  it  not  come  down  from  the  last  part  of  the  first 
century  ?  Could  a  Gospel  written  within  the  lifetime  of  many  in  the 
Church  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  be  everywhere  re 
garded  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John  who  had  been  dead  for  three 
fourths  of  a  century  or  more  ?  When  three  Gospels  had  already  been 
in  use  in  the  Church,  and  read  every  Sunday  in  the  Christian  assem 
blies,  how  could  a  fourth  one  have  been  added  long  after  the  death 
of  its  supposed  author,  and  a  Gospel,  too,  that  seemed  to  be  at  vari 
ance  with  the  others  ?  Could  the  intellectual  and  the  learned  men 
of  the  Church  thus  be  imposed  upon,  and  would  the  illiterate  have 
submitted  to  the  innovation  ?  We  all  know  what  opposition  the 
masses  now  make  to  even  a  few  changes  in  the  translation  of  the 
Bible. 

The  Alogians,  a  small  party  at  Thyatira  toward  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  in  rejecting  this  Gospel,  assigned  it  to  the  The  account  of 
heretic  Cerinthus,1  who  lived  in  the  first  century,  and  was 
a  contemporary  of  the  Apostle  John.  How  easily  they 
would  have  triumphed  if  they  could  have  shown  that  this  Gospel 
came  into  existence  after  the  death  of  John  !  Had  it  been  written 
in  the  second  century  they  could  have  easily  known  it.  Celsus,  the 
learned  and  bitter  opponent  of  Christianity,  who  wrote  about  A.  D. 
160-170,  was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  acquainted  with  our  Gospel, 
whi:h  then  bore  already  the  name  of  John.  Now,  if  this  Gospel  had 
made  its  appearance  even  in  the  earliest  part  of  the  second  century, 
there  must  have  been  many  who  knew  the  fact,  and  from  whom  he 
could  have  learned  it.  In  this  case  how  he  would  have  triumphed 
over  the  Christians,  and  told  them  that  one  of  the  chief  Gospels,  so 
far  from  giving  apostolic  testimony  to  Christ,  was  not  written  till  its 
supposed  author  had  been  dead  twenty-five  or  fifty  years !  Yet  he 
1  Epiphanius,  Haeresis  li,  3. 


586  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

speaks  of  the  Gospels  as  written  by  the  disciples  of  Cniist.  by  which 
term  he  meant  apostles. 

Even  Renan  remarks,  respecting  the  date  of  this  Gospel:  "One 
Rdnan's  ad  tnm&>  at  ^east»  I  regard  as  very  probable — that  the  book 
mission  as  to  was  written  before  the  year  100 ;  that  is,  at  an  epoch  when 
the  synoptic  Gospels  had  not  yet  a  full  canonical  author 
ity.  If  written  after  this  date,  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  author  on 
this  point  should  have  broken  loose  from  the  outline  of  the  Memoirs 
of  the  Apostles.  For  Justin,  and  it  seems  for  Papias,  the  synoptical 
outline  constitutes  the  true  and  only  outline  of  the  Life  of  Jesus. 
A  forger,  writing  toward  the  year  120  or  130  a  fancy  Gospel,  would 
have  satisfied  himself  with  treating  the  received  version  in  his  own 
way,  as  do  the  apocryphal  Gospels,  and  he  would  not  have  so  com 
pletely  destroyed  what  were  regarded  as  the  essential  lines  of  the 
life  of  Jesus."1  Truly  the  forger  of  this  book,  if  a  forgery,  in  the 
second  century,  pursued  a  most  astonishing  course,  and  it  is  more 
astonishing  that  he  should  succeed  in  it ! 

Heracleon,  a  celebrated  Valentinian,  who  was  said  to  have  been 
GOS  i  an  ac(luamtance  of  Valentinus,  wrote  a  Commentary  on 
is  quoted  in  the  John's  Gospel  about  A.  D.  170,  which  is  quoted  in  sev- 
eecond  century.  eral  places  by  Qrigen  in  his  Commentary  on  that  Gospel, 
as  we  have  already  seen.  It  appears  from  an  expression  of  Hera- 
cleon's  that  he  attributed  the  Gospel  to  a  disciple  of  Christ.  Now 
what  could  have  induced  this  eminent  heretic  to  write  a  Commen 
tary  on  this  Gospel,  and  to  attempt  to  explain  it  so  as  to  bring  it  into 
harmony  with  his  system  (a  process  often  requiring  a  forced  con 
struction),  except  its  apostolic  origin  and  its  authority  in  the  Church  ? 
He  must  have  known  that  it  was  written  in  the  first  century,  and 
that  it  was  considered  the  undoubted  work  of  an  apostle  of  Christ. 
Not  only  did  Heracleon,  but  the  Valentinians  in  general,  use  this 
Gospel  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century. 

Theophilus,  who  became  bishop  of  Antioch  in  A.  D.  169,  wrote 
Testimony  of  tnree  books  to  Autolycus  on  the  resurrection  of  the 
Theophilus.  dead,  about  180.  Speaking  of  the  Word  (Adyof)  he  says  : 
"  Which  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  all  those  who  are  inspired  by  the 
Spirit,  teach  us,  among  whom  John  says,  '/#  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God.  .  .  .  and  the  Word  was  God:  all 
things  were  made  by  him"  a  etc.  This  Theophilus,  bishop  of  the 
great  city  of  Antioch,  was  a  man  of  great  learning  and  profound 
thought,  and  he  must  have  known  whether  the  Gospel  of  John  was 
genuine  or  not.  It  is  very  probable  that  he  was  born  as  early  as  A.  D. 
no  or  120.  He  had  been  converted  from  heathenism,  and  must 
1  Vie  de  Jesus,  Ixxv-vi.  "Lib.  ii,  22. 


OF   THE   HOL\    SCRIPTURES.  587 

have  examined  carefully  the  Gospels  which  he  places  along  with  the 
prophets.1  He  calls  John's  Gospel  inspired.  Can  we  believe  that 
the  great  Christian  Church  at  Antioch,  which  must  have  been  in 
communion  with  that  of  Ephesus  and  with  other  important  Christian 
Churches,  and  its  learned  bishop,  were  all,  in  the  middle  of  the  sec 
ond  century,  when  John  had  been  dead  only  about  fifty  years,  de 
ceived  in  their  belief  of  the  genuineness  of  this  Gospel  ?  Further, 
when  Theophilus  became  bishop  of  Antioch  (A.  D.  169)  there  were 
doubtless  some  whose  memory  reached  back  to  the  year  TOO;  quite 
a  large  number,  whose  parents  were  the  contemporaries  of  St.  John 
in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  and  knew  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel. 

From  Theophilus  we  pass  to  a  witness  still  more  important,  Ire- 
naeus,  bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul,  A.  D.  177-202.  What  The  valuable 
makes  the  testimony  of  this  able  and  learned  man  so  testimony  of 
valuable  is  the  fact  that  the  early  part  of  his  life  was  l 
spent  in  Asia  Minor,  and  that  he  had  been  taught  in  his  youth  by 
Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John.  Of  the  teachings  of  Poly- 
carp  he  retained  in  after  life  the  most  distinct  recollection,  espec 
ially  what  Polycarp  had  heard  from  John  and  others  who  had  seen 
the  Lord  respecting  his  miracles  and  doctrines,  "  all  of  which  Poly 
carp  related  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures."3 

Irenaeus  states :  "  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  leaned 
upon  his  breast,  he  himself  also  published  his  Gospel  while  he  abode 
in  Ephesus  in  Asia."3  Now  it  is  evident  that  Irenaeus  had  the  best 
opportunity  to  ascertain  the  fact,  if  such,  that  John  wrote  the  Gospel 
which  bears  his  name.  He  was  a  hearer  of  Polycarp,  as  we  have 
seen,  and  there  were  many  others  in  Asia  Minor,  with  whom  Ire- 
nseus  was  acquainted,  who  had  associated  with  John.  This  appears 
clear  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  from  his  remark,  "And  all  the 
elders  who  in  Asia  had  associated  with  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord 
testify,"4  etc.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  when  Irenaeus  states 
that  John  published  his  Gospel  in  Ephesus,  he  bears  witness  to  what 
he  had  learned  from  Polycarp  and  the  elders  who  had  known  John. 
Suppose  Irenaeus  had  asserted  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was  not  writ 
ten  by  John,  or  had  expressed  doubts  about  it,  would  not  the  adver 
saries  of  this  Gospel  have  declared  that  this  was  conclusive  proof 
against  its  genuineness?  Must  not,  then,  his  testimony  in  its  favour, 
and  the  confidence  with  which  he  uses  it  as  the  production  of  the 
beloved  disciple  of  Christ,  be  the  strongest  proof  of  its  genuineness  ? 

Polycarp  remained  bishop  of  Smyrna  until  he  died  a  martyr's  death 
about  A.  D.  167.  About  160  he  visited  Rome  and  had  a  conference 

Mii,  12.  a  In  the  Epistle  to  Florinus  before  quoted. 

'Contra  Haereses,  iii,  I.         4Ibid.,  ii,  cap.  xxii,  5. 


583  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

with  the  bishop  Anicetus  of  that  city  respecting  the  passovei.  Now 
if  Polycarp  had  not  acknowledged  the  fourth  Gospel  as  that  of  John 
the  Churches  in  Asia,  that  of  Rome,  and  of  other  cities,  must  have 
known  the  fact,  and  the  authority  of  this  Gospel  being  rejected  by 
this  eminent  disciple  of  John,  it  could  not  have  been  received  as  the 
undoubted  work  of  the  beloved  disciple.  But  the  fact  that  Irenaeus, 
who  was  taught  by  Polycarp,  received  this  Gospel,  is  a  proof  that  it 
was  acknowledged  by  Polycarp. 

In  the  letter  addressed  by  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna  in 
Gaul  to  the  Churches  of  Asia  and  Phrygia  (A.  D.  177),  describing  the 
martyrdom  of  their  members,  they  say:  "That  was  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  by  our  Lord,  that  '  The  time  will  come  in  which  every  one 
that  killeth  you  will  think  that  he  doeth  God  service.'"1  This  is 
an  evident  quotation  of  John  xvi,  2.  Pothinus,  their  bishop,  ninety 
years  of  age,  had  died  in  the  persecution,  and  Irenaeus  had  been 
their  presbyter. 

Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  in  an  epistle  on  the  observance 
other  anciem  °^  tne  Passover,  addressed  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome, 
testimonies  to  and  to  the  Church  of  that  city,  written  about  A.  D.  IQO 

tne     genuine-  ,  -   ,          .         ,.    ,         ,  r     . 

ness  of  John's  or   i95>  speaks   of  keeping  "the   day  of  the  passover 


Gospel.  on  the  I4thy  according  to  the  Gospel,"  and  of  "  having 

perused  all  holy  Scripture."  In  speaking  of  John  he  says:  "And 
John,  who  leaned  on  the  breast  of  the  Lord."  It  is  in  the 
highest  degree  probable  that  this  phraseology  was  taken  from  the 
Gospel  of  John  :  "  who  also  leaned  upon  his  breast  "  (chap,  xxi,  20)  ; 
"that  one  thus  leaning  upon  the  breast  of  Jesus  "  (chap,  xiii,  25). 
Except  in  John's  Gospel,  this  phraseology  is  found  nowhere  in  the 
New  Testament.  When  Polycrates  wrote  this  letter  he  tells  us  that 
he  had  been  a  Christian  sixty-five  years,  so  that  his  memory  of 
Christian  affairs  must  have  extended  back  as  far  as  A.  D.  140.  Seven 
of  his  relations  had  been  bishops,  some  of  whom  he  says  he  suc 
ceeded  in  Ephesus.  Now  he  must  have  known  some  in  the  Ephe- 
sian  Church  who  were  acquainted  with  the  Apostle  John,  and  a  few, 
probably,  whose  memories  went  back  to  the  time  when  the  Gospel 
was  written.  He  speaks  also  of  many  bishops  whom  he  had  called 
together  and  met.2  Is  it  possible  that  the  canon  of  Polycrates, 
which  must  have  been  that  of  the  Ephesian  Church  of  which  he  was 
bishop,  did  not  include  John's  Gospel  ?  Polycrates  says  he  had  read 
all  the  holy  Scripture,  and  speaks  of  what  is  in  accordance  with  the 
Gospel,  probably  that  of  John.  If  the  Church  of  Ephesus  in  the 
second  century  received  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  work  of  the  Aposlle 
John,  it  must  be  genuine.  If  the  Church  of  Ephesus  did  not  receive 
1In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  v,  cap.  I.  8Ibid.,  v,  cap.  xxiv, 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  589 

it  in  the  second  century,  they  in  all  probability  would  not  have  re 
ceived  it  in  the  third,  for  the  tradition  that  it  was  not  written  by 
John  could  not  easily  have  been  obliterated. 

Irenasus  speaks  of  the  whole  Church  as  refreshed  by  four  Gospels, 
and  Origen  (186-254)  says  the  four  Gospels  are  received  by  the 
Church  under  heaven;  and  there  is  not  a  vestige  of  proof  that  the 
great  Church  of  Ephesus  did  not  receive  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the 
work  of  John.  Had  the  Ephesian  Church  rejected  this  Gospel,  or 
attributed  it  to  any  other  than  John,  the  Christian  writers  of  the 
second  and  two  following  centuries  could  not  have  failed  to  notice 
the  rejection,  just  as  Epiphanius  did  in  the  case  of  the  Alogians  in 
the  comparatively  obscure  town  of  Thyatira;  and  Polycrates  and 
others,  in  discussing  the  passover,  would,  in  all  probability,  have 
brought  out  the  fact.1  If  this  Gospel  had  not  been  received  in  the 
Ephesian  Church  immediately  after  the  death  of  John,  if  not  before, 
it  could  not  have  been  received  by  the  neighbouring  Churches 
of  Asia  Minor.  Irenaeus,  as  we  have  already  seen,  states  that  John 
published  his  Gospel  at  Ephesus,  and  as  he  spent  the  early  part  of 
his  life  in  the  region  of  Ephesus,  he  must  have  known  that  the  Ephe 
sian  Christians  received  this  Gospel  as  John's,  otherwise  he  could 
not  have  stated  that  this  apostle  had  delivered  it  to  them. 

In  the  Canon  of  Muratori  (written  at  Rome  about  A.  D.  160)  it  is 
stated  :  "  The  fourth  Gospel  is  that  of  John,  one  of  the  Tegtlmony  of 
disciples.  When  his  fellow-disciples  and  his  bishops  the  canon  of 
urged  him  to  write,  he  said  to  them,  Fast  with  me  to-day 
until  the  third  day,  and  whatever  shall  be  revealed  to  each,  we  will 
relate  to  each  other.  In  the  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew, 
one  of  the  apostles,  that  John  should  write  every  thing  in  his  own 
name  in  the  presence  of  all  of  them  as  witnesses."5  In  this  canon  it 
is  also  said  :  "  Why  therefore  is  it  strange  if  John  so  confidently  ad- 

1  Since  writing  the  above  we  have  found  positive  proof  for  what  we  have  argued 
in  the  text,  that  may  be  thus  shown  :  Polycrates  names  along  with  himself,  as  followers 
of  the  Apostle  John  in  keeping  the  I4th  Nisan,  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  Thraseas, 
bishop  of  Eumenia  in  Phrygia,  Bishop  Sagaris,  Melito  of  Sardis,  and  Papirius  (Eu- 
sebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxiv).  Hippolytus  (A.  D.  200-250)  says  the  observers 
of  the  I4th  Nisan  "  agree  in  other  matters  with  all  those  things  which  have  been  de 
livered  to  the  Church  by  the  apostles"  (Philosoph.,  lib.  viii,  sec.  iS).  Epiphanius 
(A.  D.  367-402)  says  of  this  same  sect,  "  These  hold  everything  as  the  Church  (holds) ; 
they  receive  the  prophets,  apostles,  and  evangelists"  (Ilreresis  1).  Of  course,  then 
they  received  John's  Gospel.  Theodoret  remarks  on  them :  "  They  say  that  the 
Evangelist  John,  when  preaching  in  Asia,  taught  them  to  observe  the  I4th  day  " 
(Haeret.  Fab.  Comp.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  iv). 

'QuARTi  EVANGELIORUM  loHANNia  EX  DECIPOLIS.    cohortantibus  condescipulis 
et  eps  suis  dixit  conieiunate  mini.     Odie  triduo  et  quid  cuique  fuerit  reuelatura 


590  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

duces  the  particulars  even  in  his  epistles,  saying  in  respect  to  him 
self,  What  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  and  heard  with  our  ears,  and 
our  hands  have  handled,  these  things  we  have  written  to  you.  For 
he  not  only  professes  to  be  an  eyewitness,  but  also  a  hearer  and  a 
writer  in"  order  of  all  the  wonderful  things  of  the  Lord."  ' 

The  particulars  thus  given  respecting  the  origin  of  John's  Gcspel 
are  valuable  as  coming  from  such  an  early  writer,  and  one  likely  to 
obtain  accurate  information,  as  Rome  was  a  place  much  visited  from 
all  parts  of  the  world.  As  mention  is  made  of  the  Apostle  Andrew 
in  the  account  of  John's  writing,  it  would  seem  that  the  Gospel  was 
written  probably  twenty  years  before  the  close  of  John's  life,  as  it  is 
not  likely  that  Andrew  was  alive  long  after  that  time. 

The  particulars  given  in  the  canon  concerning  John's  Gospel  do 
not  indicate  that  it  had  already  enemies  against  whom  it  was  to  be 
defended  as  has  been  asserted."  For  the  canon  gives  particulars 
about  Luke's  Gospel  also,  and  states  that  he  had  not  seen  the  Lord 
in  the  flesh.  Doubtless  many  particulars  were  given  respecting  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  of  which  all  is  lost  except  a  few  clos 
ing  words  on  the  latter. 

When  this  canon  was  written  there  were  in  the  Roman  Church, 
beyond  all  doubt,  some  whose  membership  and  memory  dated  as  far 
back  as  the  last  part  of  the  first  century.  The  testimony  borne  by 
this  canon  to  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  perhaps  to  his  others,  is 
also  very  valuable  in  connexion  with  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  states  that  "  John,  last  of  all,  perceiving 
Testimonies  of  that  physical  things  were  related  in  the  Gospels,  and 
rome! and  othl  being  urged  by  his  acquaintances  and  inspired  by  the 
era.  Spirit,  wrote  a  spiritual  Gospel."  !  Jerome  gives  an  ac 

count  of  the  writing  of  John's  Gospel  quite  similar  to  that  in  the 
Canon  of  Muratori,  which  he  remarks  "  ecclesiastical  history  re 
lates."  *  Apollinaris,  in  the  second  passover  controversy,  about  A.  D. 
170,  remarks  respecting  his  opponents  :  "  They  say  that  the  Lord  ate 
the  paschal  lamb  with  his  disciples  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month,  but  that  he  suffered  on  the  great  day  of  the  feast  of  unleav 
ened  bread,  and  explain  Matthew  as  so  saying  as  they  think,  but  their 

alterutrum  nobis  eunarremus  eadem  nocte  reuelatum  Andreae  ex  apostolis  ut  rc« 
cognis  centibus  cunctis  lohannis  suo  nomine  cuncta  discriberet.  Et  ideo  licit  uaria 
sinculis  euangeliorum  libris  principia  doceantur. 

1  Quid  ergo  mirum  si  Johannes  tarn  constanter  sincula  etiam  in  epistulis  suis  pro 
ferat  dicens  in  seme  ipstr  Quse  vidimus  oculis  nostris  et  auribus  audiuimus  et  manu5 
nostrse  palpauerunt  hsec  scripsimus  uobis  sic  enim  non  solum  uisurem  sed  auditorem 
sed  et  scriptorem  omnium  mirabilium  domini  per  ordinem  profetetur. 

'By  Mangold  and  Hilgenfeld.  'In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  14. 

4  Pref.  Comment,  in  Mat. 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  591 

-new  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  law,  and  the  Gospels,  according 
»o  them,  appear  to  be  at  variance  with  each  other."1  He  manifestly 
refers  to  John,  as  compared  with  the  other  Gospels,  which  shows  that 
nis  opponents  as  well  as  himself  must  have  received  that  Gospel. 
He  also  speaks  of  Christ's  side  having  been  pierced,  out  of  which 
flowed  water  and  blood,  in  reference  to  John  xix,  34,  and  it  is,  there 
fore,  evident  that  he  received  it  as  authentic  history. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Clementine  Homilies  (about  A.  D. 
160  or  170)  make  use  of  John's  Gospel,  and  that  about  the  same 
time  Tatian,  who  had  been  the  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  not  only 
makes  use  of  this  Gospel,  but  he  formed  a  Harmony  or  Combination 
of  this  Gospel  and  the  other  three.  It  was  evidently  used  by  Athe- 
nagoras2  (about  A.  D.  177),  who  speaks  of  all  things  having  been 
created  by  the  Logos  (or  Word),  and  of  the  Father's  being  in  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  in  the  Father  (in  reference  to  John  i,  1-3;  xvii, 
21-23).  About  the  same  time, or  rather  earlier,  it  was  quoted  as  an 
apostolic  document  by  Celsus,  the  bitter  writer  against  Christianity. 
It  was  known  to  the  heretic  Marcion  (about  A.  D.  140),  was  quoted 
by  Valentinus  (about  140),  and  by  Basilides  (about  120  or  125)  as  one 
of  the  Gospels. 

About  the  middle  of  the  second  century  arose  in  Phrygia,  in  Asia 
Minor,  a  fanatical  sect  of  Christians  that  made  pretensions  to  ex 
traordinary  spiritual  gifts.  They  were  called  Montanists,  from  Mon- 
tanus  of  Pepuza,  who  "  in  an  ecstatic  state  began  to  announce  that 
the  Paraclete  [Comforter]  had  imparted  itself  to  him  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  the  Church  its  manly  perfection  "  (Gieseler).  It  is  very 
evident  that  the  term  Paraclete  (which  Montanus  professed  to  be) 
was  derived  from  John's  Gospel,  in  which  Christ  promises  to  send 
the  Paraclete  (Comforter)  (chaps,  xiv,  16,  26;  xv,  26;  xvi,  7).  This 
shows  that  in  Phrygia,  about  150  or  160,  the  Gospel  of  John  was  most 
probably  regarded  as  an  authentic  record  of  Christ's  teaching. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  First  Apology,8  addressed  to  the  Emperor 
Antoninus  Pius  about  A.  D.  138  or  139,  uses  John's  Gos-  Quotations  of 
pel.  In  speaking  of  baptism  and  regeneration,  he  says  : 
"  For  Christ  said,  Unless  you  are  born  again,  you  cannot 
enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  because  it  is  evident  to  all  that  it  is 
impossible  for  those  once  born  to  enter  the  wombs  of  their  mothers.' 
Here  the  reference  to  John  iii,  3,  4  is  obvious,  and  shows  that  Justin 
regarded  this  Gospel  as  an  authentic  source  for  the  history  of  Christ. 
Justin  says  of  Christ :  "  And  the  Logos  (Word)  is  the  Son,  who  in  a 
certain  way  being  made  flesh,  became  man.4  The  Logos  (Word)  is 

'Chron.  Pascn.,  in  Migne's  ed.  Pat.,  torn.  5,  pp.  1297-1300. 

1  Legatio  Pro  Chrir.tianis,  sec.  10.  "  Sec.  61.  *  Sec.  32. 


592  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

the  first  begotten  of  God." '  It  is  clear  that  these  passages  are  based 
on  John  i,  i,  14. 

In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  written  about  A.  D.  150,  he 
also  uses  John's  Gospel.  In  speaking  of  John  the  Baptist,  he  repre 
sents  him  as  confessing,  "  I  am  not  the  Christ,"8  which  is  found  only 
in  John  i,  20.  Hilgenfeld  does  not  deny  that  Justin  used  John  along 
with  the  other  three  Gospels.  We  have  already  seen  Justin  stating 
that  the  Gospels,  or  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,  "  written  by  the  Apos 
tles  and  their  companions,"  were  read  every  Sunday,  along  with  the 
prophets,  in  the  Christian  assemblies.  From  this  language  it  is  clear 
that  two  of  the  evangelists  were  apostles,  of  whom  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  must  have  been  one.  But  it  may  be  asked,  Why  did 
not  Justin  make  greater  use  of  John's  Gospel?  To  which  it  may  be 
answered,  It  did  not  suit  his  purpose  as  well  as  the  other  Gospels. 
He  says  to  the  authorities  he  addresses :  "  That  we  may  not  appear 
to  deceive  you,  we  thought  it  proper  to  mention  some  of  the  doc 
trines  delivered  by  Christ  himself.  .  .  .  The  discourses  made  by  him 
are  short  and  concise,  for  he  was  no  sophist,  but  his  word  was  the 
power  of  God." 8  After  this  he  gives  many  of  Christ's  precepts,  taken 
mostly  from  Matthew  and  Luke,  for  John  was  not  suitable  to  his 
purpose,  as  it  contains  longer  discourses  of  a  philosophical  nature. 
He  uses  John,  however,  when  speaking  of  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos,  of  baptism,  and  regeneration.  In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho 
the  Jew  he  quotes  the  Old  Testament  chiefly,  but  he  has  also  some 
passages  from  the  first  three  Gospels,  especially  Matthew,  and  one 
from  John,  giving  the  confession  of  the  Baptist  to  which  we  have 
referred.  The  Gospel  of  John  was  not  adapted  to  his  purpose 
in  this  discussion.  Nevertheless,  Justin  has  many  passages,  as 
Professor  Semisch  shows,  which  are  formed  on  the  basis  of  John's 
Gospel. 

Justin  was  of  Neapolis  (Nablus)  in  Palestine ;  he  visited  Rome,  as 
appears  from  a  passage  in  his  Apology,  and  Ephesus,  where  he  held 
his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew.  We  are  unable  to  say  when  he 
attached  himself  to  the  Church ;  he  had  formerly  been  a  heathen 
philosopher.  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  united  with  the  Church 
as  early  as  A.  D.  130.  When  he  was  at  Ephesus,  about  A.  D.  135  or 
140,  there  must  have  been  a  considerable  number  of  Christians  who 
had  been  acquainted  with  John  (John  died  there  about  forty  years 
before),  some,  doubtless,  whose  recollection  went  as  far  back  as 
A.  D.  80,  about  the  probable  date  of  the  composition  of  this  Gospel. 
When  he  visited  Rome,  about  A.  D.  140  or  earlier,  there  must  have 
been  some  Christians  there  whose  recollection  went  back  as  far  as 
1  Sec.  21.  *Sec.  88.  'First  Apol.,  sec.  14. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  593 

A..  D.  70  or  80.     Justin  had  the  best  opportunity  to  know  whether 
»he  Gospel  of  John  was  genuine  or  not. 

In  the  ancient  Syrian  Church,  whose  chief  seat  was  Edessa,  in 
Mesopotamia,  we  have  a  most  valuable  testimony  to  Testlmon,  of 
John's  Gospel  in  the  Peshito  version  of  the  New  Testa-  theancientver 
ment,  executed  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  cen 
tury  in  all  probability,  if  not  earlier.  The  superscription  to  the 
fourth  Gospel  in  this  version  is :  "  The  holy  Gospel,  the  preaching 
of  John  the  evangelist,  which  he  spoke  and  published  in  Greek  in 
Ephesus." 

The  most  ancient  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament,  made  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  used  in  Northern  Africa  es 
pecially,  contained  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  it  attributed  to  John, 
and  placed  immediately  after  that  of  Matthew,  as  being  an  apostolic 
work. 

Tertullian,  at  Carthage,  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century  and 
in  the  first  part  of  the  third,  is  also  a  witness  to  the  authority  of 
John's  Gospel  in  the  North  African  Church.  He  observes  that  the 
authority  of  the  apostolic  Churches  will  defend  Matthew  and  John, 
as  well  as  Luke.  It  is  clear  from  his  remarks  that  he  had  no  doubt 
that  the  Gospel  of  John  had  been  in  the  Church  ever  since  the  death 
of  that  apostle. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  testimony  of  Clement  of  Alexan 
dria,  who  flourished  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  and  The  forc0  o, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  to  John's  having  Clement's  te*- 
written  his  Gospel  at  the  request  of  his  friends.  His  in 
formation  was  derived  from  the  oldest  presbyters,  as  Eusebius  states 
in  giving  the  passage.  He  was  instructed  by  Pantaenus,  who  was 
said  to  have  heard  some  who  had  seen  the  apostles.  On  Clement, 
Neander  remarks  :  "  He  convinced  himself  of  the  truth  of  Chris 
tianity  by  free  inquiry,  after  he  had  acquired  an  extensive  knowledge 
of  the  systems  of  religion  and  the  philosophy  of  divine  things  known 
at  his  time  in  the  cultivated  world.  This  free  spirit  of  inquiry, 
which  had  conducted  him  to  Christianity,  led  him,  moreover,  after 
he  had  become  a  Christian,  to  seek  the  society  of  eminent  Christian 
teachers  of  different  tendencies  of  rnind  in  different  countries.  He 
informs  us  that  he  had  had  various  distinguished  men  as  his  teachers  : 
an  Ionian  in  Greece;  one  from  Ccele-Syria;  one  in  Magna  Graecia 
(Lower  Italy),  who  came  originally  from  Egypt ;  an  Assyrian  in 
Eastern  Asia  (doubtless  Syria) ;  and  one  of  Jewish  descent  in  Pales 
tine."1  All  this  was  before  he  was  instructed  by  Pantaenus.  As 
Pantaenus  left  Alexandria  for  India  about  A.  D.  180,  Clement  must 

'Church  Hist.,  vol.  i,  691.     Torrey's  translation. 
\TOL.  I. — 38 


594  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUm 

have  received  instructions  from  him  some  time  before  that  period 
He  was  instructed  in  Southern  Italy,  Greece,  Eastern  Asia  (Syria), 
and  Palestine,  before  he  came  to  Egypt.  These  travels  may  be 
placed  about  A.  D.  170,  or  earlier.  The  testimony  of  such  a  man 
respecting  John's  Gospel  is  very  valuable,  for  he  must  have  met  with 
some  whose  membership  in  the  Church  dated  back  to  the  time  of 
John's  death. 

In  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  written  probably  in  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century,  there  are  some  passages,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  taken  from  John's  Gospel.  One,  at  least,  in  the  Epistle  of  Ig 
natius  to  the  Romans,  published  from  the  Syriac  by  Cureton,  written 
about  115.  Likewise  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  belonging  probably 
to  the  last  part  of  the  first  century,  are  also  expressions  that  appear 
to  have  been  taken  from  John's  Gospel. 

In  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  a  work  written  by  a 
other  ancient  Christian  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  century,  or  in  the 
testimonies.  beginning  of  the  second,  are  several  references  to  John's 
Gospel.  In  the  Testament  of  Benjamin  (chap,  iii)  Christ  is  called 
"  the  Lamb  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,"  from  John  i,  29 ; 
iv,  42.  In  Levi  xiv  Christ  is  "  the  light  of  the  world  given  to  en 
lighten  every  man,"  a  reference  to  John  viii,  12  ;  i,  9.  "  Then  Abra 
ham  shall  rejoice,"  Levi  xviii,  in  reference  to  John  viii,  56. l  "  Tfte 
Spirit  of  truth  bears  witness  to  all  things  and  accuses  all,"  Judah  xx, 
in  reference  to  John  xv,  26  ;  xvi,  8.  "  Until  the  Most  High  send  us 
salvation  in  the  visitation  of  the  only  begotten  Son,"  Benjamin  ix. 
in  reference  to  the  writing:;  of  John,  especially  the  Gospel. 

At  the  end  of  the  works  ol  Clement  of  Alexandria  there  are  about 
twenty-two  pages  of  Greek,  entitled,  "  Extracts  from  the  writings  of 
Theodotus  and  from  the  doctrine  called  Oriental  belonging  to  the 
times  of  Valentinus."  Neander  calls  this  epitome  :  "  A  document 
of  the  highest  authority  in  relation  to  the  Gnostic  systems.  It  is, 
perhaps,  the  fragment  of  a  critical  collection,  which  Clement  had 
drawn  up  for  his  own  use  during  his  residence  in  Syria" 2  (about 
A.  D.  170).  In  this  work  there  are  about  twenty-five  passages  from 
John's  Gospel ;  sometimes  they  are  quoted  with  the  remark — the 
Saviour,  the  Lord,  or  the  apostle  says.  The  various  sects  of  the  ser 
pent  worshippers  also  made  great  use  of  this  Gospel  in  the  last  half 
of  the  second  century,  and  probably  in  the  first  half. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  universally  re 
ceived  in  the  Christian  Church  throughout  the  world,  in  the  last  half 
of  the  second  century,  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  was 

1  The  same  verb  (ayaMidopai)  is  used  both  in  John  and  in  this  Testament. 
'Church  Hist.,  vol.  i,  693. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  £95 

very  generally  received  by  the  heretics  themselves  as  an  author 
ity.  Now,  how  could  this  reception  of  the  Gospel  as  the  condugtonfrom 
work  of  the  beloved  disciple  of  Christ  have  been  unani-  ancient testimo- 
mous  *  within  fifty  years  of  his  death,  if  it  had  not  been  "* 
really  written  by  him?  But,  further,  the  testimonies  to  this  Gospel 
go  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  second,  if  not  to  the  close  of  the  first, 
century,  so  that  it  certainly  made  its  appearance  very  soon  after  the 
death  of  John,  though  in  all  probability  before  that  event. 

To  the  external  proofs  of  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
already  given,  we  add  the  following :  Apelles,  a  heretic  of  the  last 
half  of  the  second  century,  a  disciple  of  Marcion,  taught  that  "  Christ, 
having  risen  after  three  days,  showed  himself  to  his  disciples,  and 
exhibited  the  prints  of  the  nails  and  of  his  side"  (Philosophoumena, 
lib.  vii,  sec.  38),  from  which  it  is  evident  that  he  used  John's  Gospel 
as  an  authority.  The  sect  of  Montanists,  which  arose  in  Phrygia 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  received  the  same  Gospels 
with  the  rest  of  the  Christians  (Philosophoumena,  lib.  viii,  sec.  19; 
Epiphanius,  lib.  ii ;  Hseresis  xlviii).  Praxeas,  who  came  from  Phrygia 
to  Rome  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century,  received  John's 
Gospel,  as  is  evident  from  the  manner  in  which  Tertullian  replies  to 
him  (Adversus  Praxeam).  Noetus  of  Smyrna,  a  Partripassian  (about 
A.  D.  230),  evidently  received  John's  Gospel,  as  appears  from  the 
answer  given  him  by  Hippolytus.  Callistus  of  Rome  (about  A.-D. 
?oo)  quotes  John  xiv,  10  as  an  authority.8  Urban,  bishop  of  Rome 
(about  A.  D.  225),  quotes  John  xx,  22,  23.  The  learned  Hippolytus 
(about  A.  D.  200-250)  received  John's  Gospel.  Novatian,  presbyter 
of  Rome  (A.  D.  250-275),  in  his  work  on  the  Trinity,  makes  exten 
sive  use  of  John's  Gospel.  Victorinus,  bishop  of  Petavio  (Pettau) 
in  Upper  Pannonia  (Hungary)  in  the  last  part  of  the  third  century, 
quotes  the  fourth  Gospel  as  John's.  Firmilian,  bishop  of  Caesarea 
in  Cappadocia,  in  his  Epistle  to  Cyprian  (about  A.  D.  255),  quotes 
John  xvii,  24;  xx,  23,  25.  Methodius,  a  man  of  great  learning, 
bishop  of  Patara  and  Olympus  in  Lycia  (in  Asia  Minor),  and  after 
ward  of  Tyre  in  Phoenicia,  in  the  last  half  of  the  third  century,  uses 
John's  Gospel.  Lactantius,  the  celebrated  Christian  writer  in  Nico- 
media  (in  Asia  Minor)  (about  A.  D.  314),  quotes  as  John's,  John  i, 
1-3."  Gelasius,  of  Cyzicus,  states  that  the  Nicene  Council  (which 
was  held  A.  D.  325)  expressed  through  Hosius,  bishop  of  Cordova 
in  Spain,  its  views  respecting  the  divinity  of  Christ,  beginning  with 
the  first  verse  of  John's  Gospel,  and  that  a  philosopher,  in  replying, 

1  Of  course  we  except  the  obscure  sect  of  Alogians  at  Thyatira  about  A.  D 
170-200,  of  whom  we  shall  speak  in  the  future. 
7  Philosophoumena,  lib.  ix,  sec.  12.  'Divin.  Instit.,  lib.  iv,  cap  viii 


59G  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

also  quoted  John's  Gospel.1     Athanasius,  who  was  present  at  the 
Council,  states  that  the  bishops  quoted  for  the  divinity  of  Christ 
John  x,  30.     This  great  theologian  asks  his  opponents  whether  they 
believe  the  Son  when  he  says,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  "  (John 
x,  30) ;  and,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  "  (John 
xiv,  9)  ?     Certainly,  they  would  say,  we  believe  him,  since  thus  it  is 
written.9     There  appears  to  have  been  no  doubt  expressed  ;n  the 
Council  respecting  the  apostolic  origin  and  authority  of  John's  Gos 
pel.     Marcellus,  bishop  of  Ancyra  in  Galatia  (about  A.  D.  330), 
quotes  John  i,  i,  with  the  remark :  "  John,  the  holy  apostle  and  dis 
ciple  of  the  Lord."1     In  the  council  held  at  Sardica,  A.  D.  347, 
we  find  that  the  bishops  in  their  confession  of  faith  quote  John  i,  3  ; 
x,  30;  xiv,  10.*     The  Council  of  Ancyra,  in  Galatia  (semi-Arian), 
collected  from  seven  provinces  (A.  D.  358),  quotes,  in  its  decrees, 
the  first  part  of  John's  Gospel  as  what  the  Apostle  John  delivered.6 
Basil  of  Ancyra,  and  Georgius  of  Laodicea,  members  of  this  Coun 
cil,  and  their  associates,  in  their  confession  of  faith,  in  various  pas 
sages  use  John's  Gospel  as  an  authority."     In  the  decree  of  the 
Council  held  A.  D.  359,  at  Seleucia  in  Asia  Minor,  it  is  stated  :  "  We 
also  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  called  the  Paraclete  (Comforter),  having  promised  that  after 
his  departure  he  would  send  this  to  the  apostles."     This  passage 
manifestly  refers  to  John  xiv,  26  as  an  authentic  declaration  of  Christ. 
This  document  is  signed  by  forty-three  bishops,  and  among  them  we 
find  bishops  of  Phrygia,  Lycia,  Lydia  (including  the  bishop  of  Phila 
delphia),  and  Mytilene,  places  lying  in  the  region  of  Ephesus.7     In 
the  decrees  of  the  Oriental  Council,  held  (about  A.  D.  363)  at  Laod 
icea,  about  a  hundred  miles  from  Ephesus,  the  Gospel  of  John  forms 
a  part  of  the  canon  of  Scripture.8     The  reception  of  John's  Gospel 
by  all  parties  in  the  general  Council  of  Nicsea,  in  which  the  divinity 
of  Christ  was  discussed  and  adopted  as  an  article  of  faith — a  doc 
trine  that  finds  such  strong  support  in  this  Gospel — shows  the  deep 
conviction   of  its  apostolic   authority  in  the  whole  Church.     The 
recognition  of  this  Gospel  as  John's  in  all  the  regions  about  Ephe 
sus,  where  the  apostle  spent  the  last  part  of  his  life  and  died,  gives 
the  assurance  that  it  really  proceeded  from  him.     For  how,  other 
wise,  could  its  genuineness  have  been  universally  acknowledged  in 
the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century  through  all  these  regions?     The 

1  Historia  Concilii  Nicaeni,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xii,  xvii. 

*  Athanasius,  Epistola  ad  Afros  Episcopos,  sees.  6  and  7. 

•  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Theol.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xi.      *  In  Theodoret.  Eccles.  Hist.,  lib.  ii 

•  Ejiiphanius,  Haeresis  liii,  cap.  ii-xi.  e  Ibid.,  cap.  xii-xxii. 

*  In  Epiphanius,  Hseresis  liii,  cap.  xxv,  xxvi.     *  Photius,  Syntag.  Can.,  tit  iii. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  507 

Alogians  of  Thyatira,  who  rejected  this  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse, 
were  very  obscure;  the  name  of  not  a  single  member  of  the  sect 
has  come  down  to  us.  In  the  councils  of  the  Church  no  representa 
tive  of  the  Alogians  appears.  It  is  difficult  to  say  how  long  the  sect 
lasted.  Nothing  more  clearly  shows  the  ignorance  or  the  reckless 
ness  of  the  sect  than  their  attributing  this  Gospel  to  the  heretic 
Cerinthus,  whose  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of  Christ  was  so 
entirely  different  from  that  set  forth  in  the  Gospel  of  John. 

THE  UNITY  OF   AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  GOSPEL  AND  FIRST  EPISTLE 

OF  JOHN. 

That  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John  had  the 
same  author  is  entirely  certain.     In  comparing  the  two  The  similarity 

works,  the  identity  of  authorship  strikes  us  like  a  sen-  between  fourth 
.  .....  .        Gospel  and  the 

sation;  ana  a  minute  examination  of  their  contents  in-   First  Epistle  <rf 

delibly  fixes  conviction.  That  able  but  sceptical  critic,  Jolm* 
De  Wette,  remarks  upon  this  subject :  u  So  much  is  certain,  that 
both  writings,  this  Epistle  [of  John]  and  the  fourth  Gospel,  proceed 
from  the  same  author;  for  both  bear  the  most  definite  stamp  of  rela 
tionship,  as  well  in  style  as  in  conceptions ;  both  impress  upon  the 
reader  the  same  charm  of  a  kind  nature."3  He  gives  the  following 
instances  of  similarity  of  style  in  both  :  troielv  rrjv  dkri$eiav,  to  do  the 
truth,  i  John  i,  6 ;  John  iii,  21  :  OVK  eariv  f)  d/U?i9eja  £v  rivi,  the  truth 
is  not  in  any  one,  i  John  i,  8  ;  ii,  4 ;  John  viii,  44 :  BK  rrft  dh7]$£ia$ 
elvai,  to  be  of  the  truth,  i  John  ii,  21 ;  John  xviii,  37  :  k&  rov  6ia(36hov 
tlvat,  to  be  of  the  devil,  i  John  iii,  8  ;  John  viii,  44  :  &K  rov  deov  elvai, 
to  be  of  God,  i  John  iii,  10;  iv,  i ;  John  vii,  17  ;  viii,  47  ;  £K  rov  noo- 
fiov  dvai,  to  be  of  the  world,  i  John  iv,  5  ;  John  viii,  23 ;  en  rov  KOO- 
uov  Aa/lm>,  to  speak  of  the  world,  i  John  iv,  5,  is  similar  to  John  iii,  31, 
£«  rr\<;  yrig  Aa/Uiv,  to  speak  of  the  earth :  ev  avrti  pevopev,  KCLI  avrog  ev 
flplv,  we  remain  in  him,  and  he  in  us,  i  John  iv,  13,  the  same  phraseology 
as  John  vi,  56  ;  xv,  4 :  kv  r^  aicoria,  ev  r£>  0om  neoLirarelv,  in  the  dark 
ness,  in  the  light  to  walk,  i  John  ii,  ii ;  i,  6,  7  ;  John  viii,  12  ;  xii,  35  : 
yivuowv  rov  tfeov,  or  %pior6v,  to  know  God,  or  Christ,  i  John  ii,  3,  4, 
13,  14 ;  iv,  6-8 ;  v,  20 ;  John  xvi,  3  ;  xvii,  25  :  rrjv  i/>v#7/v  kavrov  ri&e- 
vii,  to  lay  down  his  life,  i  John  iii,  16 ;  John  x,  1 1,  17, 18 ;  xv,  13  :  a/Ltap- 
riav  e%«v,  to  have  sin,  i  John  i,  8;  John  ix,  41 ;  xv,  22,  24;  xix,  ii  : 
e%eiv  faTjv  ai&viov,  or  rr\v  ^v,  to  have  eternal  life,  or  life,  i  John 
iii,  15  ;  ^v,  12 ;  John  iii,  15,  36 ;  v,  24,  39,  40 ;  vi,  40,  47,  54 :  ^£ro- 
Saiveiv  EK  rov  -Qavdrov  dg  rfjv  frrfv,  to  pass  from  death  unto  life,  i  John 
iii,  14;  John  v,  24:  viicdv  rdv  KOC^JLOV,  to  overcome  the  world,  i  John 

1  Einleitung,  p.  390. 


598  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 


v,  4  ;  John  xvi,  33  :  fiaprvpiav  Xappdveiv,  to  receive  testimony,  i  John 
v,  9;  John  iii,  n,  32;  v,  34  :  a'lpetv  TTJV  afAapriav,  to  take  away  sin} 
i  John  iii,  5  ;  John  i,  29.  There  is  a  peculiarity  in  John's  writings 
which  De  Wette  notices,  the  union  of  an  affirmative  and  a  negative  ; 
u  We  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth,"  i  John  i,  6  ;  "  He  confessed,  and  did 
not  deny,"  John  i,  20.  Compare  also  i  John  i,  5,  8;  ii,  4,  10,  27,  28; 
with  John  i,  3;  iii,  20;  v,  24;  vii,  18;  xvi,  29,  30. 

These  are  only  a  portion  of  the  similar  passages  found  in  the  Epis 
tle  and  Gospel,  which  De  Wette  1  gives  in  proof  of  identity  of  author 
ship  of  the  two  writings.  Nothing  more  clearly  shows  the  value  of 
the  testimony  furnished  by  the  Epistle  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospel,  and  the  desperate  straits  of  the  impugners  of  this  Gospel, 
than  the  denial  of  their  unity  by  some  of  the  ablest  opponents  of 
the  former,  including  Strauss  and  Hilgenfeld. 

Nowhere  in  the  ancient  Church  do  we  find  a  single  doubt  respect- 
First  Epistle  inS  tn^s  Epistle  ;  it  was  never  attributed  to  any  other 
of  John  never  than  the  beloved  disciple  who  wrote  the  Gospel.  a  It  was 
toe8  °ancient  used  by  Polycarp  s  —  a  disciple  of  John  about  A.  D.  115. 
cuurcn.  Eusebius  states  that  Papias,  who  lived  in  Asia  Minor  in 

the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  and  is  called  by  Irenaeus  a 
hearer  of  John,  "made  use  of  testimonies  from  the  First  Epistle 
of  John."4  Nor  could  Eusebius  be  mistaken  in  this  matter,  for  he 
had  before  him  the  work  of  Papias  ;  and  the  peculiar  style  of  John's 
Epistle,  even  though  unnamed,  is  easily  recognized  wherever  quoted. 

This  Epistle  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  the  Canon  of 
Muratori,  is  attributed  to  the  Apostle  John,  and  it  formed  a  part  of 
the  earliest  Latin  version.  It  is  quoted  by  Irenaeus  as  the  writing 
of  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord  ;  6  also  by  Clement9  of  Alexandria, 
and  Tertullian  7  of  Carthage,  as  John's.  It  is  attributed  to  John  by 
Origen,8  and  Eusebius  ;  9  arid  Jerome  remarks  that  it  "  is  approved  of 
by  all  ecclesiastics  and  learned  men."1 

1Einleitung,  p.  396. 

*  It  is  well  known  that  the  Alogians  rejected  both  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the 
Apocalypse.     But  Epiphanius  was  uncertain  whether  or  not  they  rejected  the  Epis 
tles  of  John.     "  Perhaps,"  says  he,  "  also  the  Epistles  they  rejected  (rdxa  de  nal  rdf 
^TUcrroAdf  TrapsKftdMEiv),  for  these  also  agree  with  the  Gospel  and  with  the  Apoca 
lypse."  —  Haeresis  li,  cap.  xxxiv. 

1  Polycarp's  words  are  :  Ildf  yap  of  av  ftq  o/zoAoy??  'iqaovv  Xpmrov  kv  oapul  thrjto' 
&6vai  avrixpicFTos  e<m,  "For  every  one  who  does  not  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Chrisl 
hai  come  in  the  Jlesh  is  antichrist"  —  Epist.  to  Philippians,  7.  This  is  almost  the 
exact  language  of  i  John  iv,  2,  3.  *  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  xxxix. 

*  Contra  Haereses,  iii,  cap.  xvi,  sec.  5.  'Stromata,  iii,  cap.  vi,  etc. 
'Lib.  de  Praeccrip.,  cap.  xxxiii.  "In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  25. 
•iii,  25.                                                                   10  Lib.  de  Viris  Illus  ,  cap.  ix. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  509 

That  the  author  of  this  Epistle  was  an  eyewitness  of  the  life  of 
Christ  is  stated  in  the  clearest  manner  in  the  beginning:  "That 
which  was  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have 
seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have 
handled,  of  the  word  of  life;  for  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we 
Have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal  life 
which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us."  The  writer 
characterizes  himself  as  bearing  witness  to  his  contemporaries  of 
what  he  saw  and  heard.  If  this  language  does  not  imply  an  eyewit 
ness,  what  would  ? 

The  author  of  the  Epistle  being  an  eyewitness  of  Christ's  life,  and 
the  unity  of  authorship  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  resting  upon  the 
clearest  evidence,  it  follows  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was 
an  eyewitness  of  the  life  of  Christ ;  and  all  antiquity,  as  we  have  al 
ready  seen,  attributed  both  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Apostle 
John,  the  last  surviving  apostle  of  Christ.  All  the  ancient  Greek 
MSS.  of  this  Gospel  (about  five  hundred  in  number)  attribute  it  to 
John,  which  shows  that  this  was  the  superscription  of  the  earliest 
manuscripts. 

The  adversaries  of  this  Gospel,  being  hard  pressed  by  the  external 
evidence  in  its  favour,  take  refuge  in  the  supposed  silence  of  Papias 
respecting  it.  But  we  do  not  know  that  Papias  was  silent  as  his  work 
is  lost.  It  is  true  that  Eusebius  adduces  no  quotation  we  do  not 
from  him  on  John's  Gospel,  but  the  fact  that  Papias  made 
use  of  testimonies  from  the  First  Epistle  of  John  gives  not  say. 
indirect  evidence  for  the  Gospel.  We  do  not  know  that  Papias  was 
discussing  the  Gospels  in  general  at  all.  Eusebius  states  that  he  re 
marked  that  Matthew  wrote  originally  in  Hebrew,  and  Mark  from 
the  instructions  of  Peter.  There  was  no  reason  why  he  should  have 
given  any  particulars  about  John's  Gospel,  for  that  evangelist  spent 
the  last  part  of  his  life  not  more  than  a  hundred  miles  from  the  town 
of  which  Papias  was  bishop,  and  the  facts  pertaining  to  that  Gospel 
were  well  known  in  the  region  of  Papias.  Eusebius  does  not  tell  us 
whether  Papias  made  any  statement  about  Luke,  nor  was  it  neces 
sary  that  Papias  should,  as  Luke  himself,  in  the  preface  to  his  Gospel, 
gives  the  source  of  his  information.  Eusebius  does  not  state  whether 
Papias  used  the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  is  that  an  argument  against  their 
genuineness  ? 

Tischendorf,1  however,  is  of  the  opinion  that  we  have  proof  that 

Papias  did  bear  testimony  to  John's  Gospel.     He  finds  this  proof  in 

the  Prologue  to  the  Gospel  of  John  in  a  Latin   manuscript  of  the 

Vatican,  which  is  very  ancient :  "  The  Gospel  of  John  was  published 

1  Origin  of  the  Four  Gospels,  p.  IQQ. 


600  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

and  given  to  the  Churches  by  John  while  still  living  in  the  body,  as 
Papias,  of  Hierapolis,  a  dear  disciple  of  John,  related  in  the  last  of 
his  five  books."  '  We  confess  our  inability  to  determine  what  value 
should  be  given  to  this  document. 

Irenaeus  remarks,  that  the  presbyters,  in  speaking  of  different  condi 
tions  of  the  redeemed  in  heaven,  say  that  "on  this  account  the  Lord 
said:  'In  my  Father's  (house)  are  many  mansions.'"3  Here  is  a 
clear  reference  to  John's  Gospel  (chap,  xiv,  2),  with  which  these 
presbyters  were  acquainted,  and  which  they  acknowledged  as  an  au 
thentic  history  of  Christ.  But  who  were  these  presbyters  that  thus 
used  John?  Irenseus  answers  that  by  calling  them  "  the  disciples  of 
the  apostles  "  (ol  npea(3vTepot  r&v  cnroaTohuv  padTjTai).  In  this  class 
he  may  have  included  Papias,  though  it  is  not  improbable  that  Ire- 
nseus  may  have  derived  his  information  from  the  work  of  Papias. 

INTERNAL    EVIDENCE    THAT    THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL    PROCEEDED 
FROM  THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

If  the  fourth  Gospel  is  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John  several  things 

must  accord  with  that  fact.     i.  The  author  must  show 
Points   of  the 

internal  evl-  his  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew,  or  with  the  Aramaic 
language  ;  at  least,  he  must  give  no  proof  of  his  ignoram  e 
of  it.  2.  He  must  not  betray  any  ignorance  of  the  topography  of  the 
regions  of  Christ's  ministry,  or  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews  at  that 
period.  3.  There  should  be  some  indications  in  the  narrative  that 
the  author  was,  or  may  have  been,  an  eyewitness  of  the  life  of  Christ. 

Now  these  conditions  are  fully  satisfied  in  this  Gospel.  But,  fur 
ther,  we  find  some  particulars  in  the  narrative  of  such  a  peculiar  na 
ture  that  it  is  clear  the  author  of  the  Gospel  was  an  eyewitness  of 
the  scenes  described. 

The  author  shows  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  by  the  translation 
John  shows  in  he  has  given  of  Zechariah  xii,  10  (in  part)  in  chapter 

taowiedg*1  of  xix>  37  :  "  They  sha11  look  on  him  whom  they  pierced," 
Hebrew.  which  could  not  have  been  taken  from  the  Septuagint, 

nor  from  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  in  neither  of  which 
is  there  any  thing  to  correspond  to  the  Hebrew  i£n,  to  pierce.  He  ap- 

1  Evangelium  lohannis  manifestatum  et  datum  est  ecclesiis  ab  lohanne  adhuc  ill 
corpora  constitute,  sicut  Papias  nomine  Hierapolitanus,  discipulus  lohannis  caios, 


in  exotericis  id  est  in  extremis  quinque  libris  retulit.  —  Patrum  Apostol.  Opera. 
z>g<  I8?5-     The  editors  of  this  work  think  the  passage  spurious. 

*  The  Greek  in  Irenaeus  (lib.  v,  xxxvi,  sec.  2)  is,  kv  roZf  rov  7rarp6f  fiov  fiova?  dv<u 
»ro/l/iaf,  in  those  of  my  Father  are  many  mansions.  The  Greek  in  John  xiv,  2  is, 
kv  rri  oinia  rot)  Trarpof  fiov  fiovai  TroXAu/  eicrtv,  in  the  house  of  my  Father  are  many 
mansions.  The  word  fiovai  (mansions],  occurs  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  ex 
cept  in  John's  Gospel,  and  was  rarely  used  in  this  sense  outside  of  it. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  G01 

pears  also  to  have  based  the  passage  (chap,  xii,  15)  upon  the  Hebrew 
text  of  Zechariah  ix,  9.  In  other  passages  he  follows  the  LXX.  He 
also  shows  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  by  giving  the  orig 
inal  and  its  translation  into  Greek  :  Rabbi,  master  (chap,  i,  38) ;  Mes- 
iias,  Christ  (ver.  41)  ;  Cephas,  a  rock  (ver.  42) ;  Siloam,  sent  (chap. 
ix,  7).  He  gives  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  word  for  Aidoarpurov 
(Pavement],  Gabbatha  (chap,  xix,  13),  and  the  meaning  of  the  He 
brew  Rabbouni,  master  (chap,  xx,  16).  Bethesda,  the  name  he  gives 
a  pool  with  five  porches  in  Jerusalem  (chap,  v,  2),  meaning  House  of 
Mercy,  is  a  regular  Aramaic  name.  As  Aramaic  expressions,  we  may 
name  yevro&ai  ftavdrov,  to  taste  death,  (chap,  viii,  52) ;  the  use  of  onav. 
(5aAt£a>  in  a  moral  sense,  to  give  offense  (chaps,  vi,  61 ;  xvi,  i) ;  <7</>pa- 
yi^uv,  in  the  sense  to  confirm,  approve  (chaps,  iii,  33  ;  vi,  27).  Evrei)- 
i9ev  ical  evrevtiev,  hence  and  hence  (chap,  xix,  18),  for  on  this  side  and  on 
that,  is  in  imitation  of  the  Hebrew  HTDI  nitt.  The  phrase  6  ap%o>v 
rov  Koapov  rovrov,  the  prince  of  this  world,  for  Satan  (chap,  xii,  31), 
is  Rabbinical.1 

The  sense  in  which  the  author  uses  </>wf,  light,  anoxia,  darkness,  cap!-, 
flesh,  nvtvpa,  spirit,  is  decidedly  Jewish.  The  illustrations  drawn 
from  a  shepherd  and  his  flock  (chap,  x,  1-29),  and  from  living 
waters  (chaps,  iv,  10;  vii,  37,  38),  are  also  Jewish.  The  author's 
references  to  the  Old  Testament,  especially  to  the  prophecies  per 
taining  to  the  Messiah  and  his  times,  are  what  was  to  be  expected 
from  a  Christian  who  had  been  brought  up  in  Judaism.  He  uses  the 
word  law  in  several  places  (chaps,  x,  34;  xii,  34;  xv,  25)  for  the 
Old  Testament  in  general,  which  no  one  but  a  Jew  would  have  done. 

The  author  is  well  acquainted  with  the  customs  of  the  Jews.  He 
speaks  of  the  passover  (chap,  ii,  13,  etc.) ;  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
(chap,  vii,  2);  the  feast  of  dedication  in  winter  (chap,  x,  22);  and 
the  day  of  preparation  (before  the  sabbath)  (chap,  xix,  14,  31,  42)  ; 
their  purifications  (chaps,  ii,  6 ;  iii,  25  ;  xviii,  28) ;  and  the  penalty 
of  excommunication  from  the  synagogue  (chap,  ix,  34).  He  knows 
in  what  period  of  time  the  temple  was  built  (forty-six  years)  (chap. 
ii,  20);  and  that  Annas  was  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas2  (chap. 
xviii,  13). 

The  author  also  shows  an  exact  acquaintance  with  the  Samaritans 
In  the  account  of  the  interview  of  Christ  with  the  woman  of  Samaria 
at  Jacob's  well,  she  says:  "I  know  that  Messiah  cometh.  When  he 

1  Lightfoot,  in  commenting  on  John  xii,  31.  adduces  a  considerable  number  of  pas 
sages  from  the  ancient  Rabbies  in  illustration  of  this  usage. 

*  In  John  xi,  51  it  is  stated  that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  that  year — that  is,  the 
year  in  which  Christ  was  crucified.  This  does  not  imply  that  the  high  priest  was 
changed  every  year,  but  simply  that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  at  that  time. 


602  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

is  come,  he  will  tell  us  all  things"  (chap,  iv,  25).  There  can  Ixi  no 
doubt  that  the  Samaritans  of  that  age  expected  a  Messiah,  for  the 
high  priest  of  that  people  at  Nablus,  about  six  years  ago,  stated  to  me 
that  he  expected  a  Messiah.1  He  based  his  expectation  chiefly  upon 
Deuteronomy  xviii,  18.  This  was,  doubtless,  a  traditional  doctrine, 
and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  if  the  ancient  Samaritans  had  held 
no  such  view  the  moderns  would  have  taken  it  up.  The  Samar 
itan  woman  also  said  to  Christ :  "  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  this 
mountain,  and  ye  say,  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  place  where  men 
ought  to  worship  "  (chap,  iv,  20).  Here  the  woman  refers  to  the 
controversy  between  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  respecting  the  proper 
place  of  divine  worship.  The  Samaritans,  in  rejecting  all  the  Old 
Testament  except  the  Pentateuch,  deprived  the  Jews  of  every  proof 
that  Jerusalem  was  the  place  where  worship  should  be  offered.  They 
also  changed  "  Ebal "  to  "  Gerizim  "  in  their  Pentateuch,  so  as  to 
make  the  latter  the  place  in  which  Moses  commanded  that  an  altar 
should  be  built  and  offerings  made  (Deut.  xxvii,  4-8).  On  Gerizim 
— to  which  the  Samaritan  woman  refers,  "  in  this  mountain,"  close  to 
Jacob's  well — the  Samaritans  had  a  temple  built  in  the  time  of  Alex 
ander  the  Great,  which  was  destroyed  by  John  Hyrcanus2  (B.  C.  129). 
The  high  priest  of  the  Samaritans  told  me  that  he  regarded  Gerizim 
(Nablus)  as  the  place  where  worship  should  be  rendered,  and  that 
he  considered  the  modern  Jews  as  a  species  of  heretics,  acting  in 
many  things  contrary  to  the  law.  How  accurate,  then,  is  the  ac 
count  of  this  people  and  their  relations  to  the  Jews,  given  by  the  au 
thor  of  the  fourth  Gospel ! 

In  the  controversy  between  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  Christ  de 
cides  in  favour  of  the  Jews,  and  declares :  "  Ye  (Samaritans)  wor 
ship  ye  know  not  what :  we  (the  Jews)  know  what  we  worship ;  for 
salvation  is  of  the  Jews  "  (chap,  iv,  22).  It  is  very  clear  that  Christ 
recognizes  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  in  using  "we," 
and  that  he  has  no  reference  to  a  small  portion  of  the  Jews  who 
were  spiritual.  In  short,  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  Gnosti 
cism  in  the  passage.'  When  Christ  says,  "  Salvation  is  of  the  Jews," 
the  context  requires  the  meaning  tc  be :  "  Salvation  pertains  to  and 
proceeds  from  the  Jews." 

The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  shows  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
country  in  which  Christ  exercised  his  ministry.  The  statement  in 
chap,  iv  respecting  Jacob's  well,  close  to  Mount  Gerizim,  and  close  by 

1See  my  interview  with  the  high  priest  of  the  Samaritans  it  Nabltis,  in  my  Jour 
ney  to  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land,  pp.  183-186. 
1  Josephus,  Antiq.,  b.  xiii,  chap,  ix,  sec.  I. 
*  Hilgenfeld's  exposition  of  the  passage  is  very  arbitrary. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  603 

Sychar,1  or  Shechem,  near  a  parcel  of  ground  that  Jacob  gave  to  his 
son  Joseph,  and  on  the  way  from  Judea  into  Galilee,  is  Topog  aphlpal 
very  accurate.  The  answer  of  the  Samaritan  woman,  accuracy  of  the 
"  the  well  is  deep,"  is  also  accurate,  for  it  is  not  less  than 
seventy-five  feet2  in  depth.  East  of  the  well,  close  to  it,  and  lying 
but  little  lower  than  it,  is  a  valley  running  north  and  south,  which 
was  set  in  wheat  when  the  writer  was  there,  and  from  time  immemorial 
has  been,  doubtless,  sowed  with  this  grain.  This  very  field  may  have 
suggested  the  beautiful  language  of  Christ :  "  Say  not  ye,  There  are 
yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh  harvest  ?  behold,  I  say  unto  you, 
Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields ;  for  they  are  white  already 
to  harvest  "  (chap,  iv,  35). 

In  chap,  ix,  7  our  Saviour  says  to  the  blind  man,  "  Go,  wash  in  the 
pool  of  Siloam."  Of  this  pool  Josephus  speaks  :  "  The  valley  called 
that  of  the  Cheesemakers,  which,  we  said,  separates  the  ridge  of  the 
upper  city  from  the  lower  ridge,  extends  down  to  Siloam,8  for  thus 
we  called  the  fountain,  which  was  large  and  sweet."4  We  found  this 
fountain  just  where  Josephus  locates  it,  at  the  end  of  the  valley  di 
viding  Jerusalem. 

In  chap,  xi,  18  it  is  said  :  "  Now  Bethany  was  nigh  unto  Jerusalem 
about  fifteen  furlongs  off."  When  in  Palestine  we  made  an  estimate 
of  the  distance  of  this  village  from  Jerusalem,  and  found  it  about 
one  mile  and  three  fourths  to  St.  Stephen's  gate  in  the  east  wall.6 
In  chapter  xviii,  i  it  is  stated  that  "  Jesus  with  his  disciples  went 
out  beyond  the  brook  Cedron 8  (Kidron),  where  was  a  garden." 
In  speaking  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Josephus  remarks  :  "  It  lies 
east  of  Jerusalem,  from  which  it  is  separated  by  a  deep  ravine,  which 

'This  form  of  the  name,  instead  of  Su^fjU,  Sychem  (in  Acts  and  often  in  LXX), 
SiKifia,  Sikima,  as  it  was  sometimes  called,  may  have  been  a  provincialism  with  the 
Jews  of  Galilee,  or  it  may  have  been  derived  from  "lj^.123,  shelter,  falsehood,  given 
the  place  in  contempt.  Beelzebub  was  changed  into  Beelzebul,  for  example.  It  is, 
however,  possible  that  the  village  Askart  not  far  from  the  well,  on  the  shoulder  of 
Ebal,  may  be  intended.  3As  we  found  by  trial. 

'John  and  Josephus  in  this  passage  use  exactly  the  same  word  2/Awu//. 

4  Bel.  Jud.,  lib.  v,  cap.  iv,  I. 

'Fifteen  Greek  furlongs  make  three  thousand  and  thirty  yards. 

The  reading  in  chap,  xviii,  I  is  not  uniform  in  the  MSS.  Tischendorf  adopts 
row  Kedpov,  from  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  Tregelles  T&V  Kedpuv,  from  Codex  Vat- 
icanus.  We  would  prefer  the  Alexandrian  Codex,  which  gives  rov  Kedpuv.  The 
variations  in  the  MSS.  arose  from  the  copyists'  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  name  of  the 
brook,  yi"nj?,  qMron  (turbid},  which  they  mistook  for  the  plural  of  the  Greek 
Kedpof,  a  cedar,  and,  consequently,  they  sometimes  inserted  a  plural  article  before  it, 
as  it  is  also  written  in  I  Kings  xv,  13.  Josephus  writes  it  in  the  singular,  Kedpuv, 
Kedpwvof.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  supposed  the 
brook  was  named  after  cedar  trees. 


604  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

is  called  Cedron '  (Kedpwv)."  In  one  place  he  calls  it  a  brook 
(^etjiiappoc),  just  as  in  John.  Cedron  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the 
New  Testament.  Just  east  of  the  dry  bed  of  the  Kidron,  at  the  foot 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  the  garden  (Gethsemane)  into  which  our 
Saviour  went  is  still  pointed  out. 

In  chap,  iii,  23  we  have  the  statement :  "  And  John  also  was  bap 
tizing  in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  (vdara 
froAAd,  many  waters  or  fountains)  there."  Enon  is  a  Chaldee  word, 
pry,  meaning  fountains.  To  this  Enon  (or,  rather,  ^Enon)  Jerome 
refers:  "  ^)non,  near  Salim,  where  John  baptized,  as  it  is  written 
in  the  Gospel  according  to  John  (chap,  iii,  23)  ;  and,  until  the  pres 
ent  time,  the  place  is  shown,  eight  miles  to  the  south  of  Scythopolis, 
near  Salim  and  the  Jordan."  a 

In  chapter  vi,  19,  in  speaking  of  the  disciples  crossing  the  north 
end  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  from  the  eastern  shore  to  Bethsaida  on  the 
western,  it  is  stated :  "  When  they  had  rowed  about  twenty-  five  or 
thirty  furlongs  " — that  is,  about  three  miles,  or  three  and  a  half — "  they 
see  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea."  When  he  enters  the  ship,  u immedi 
ately  the  ship  was  at  the  land  whither  they  went "  (verse  21).  The 
Sea  of  Galilee  is  not  more  than  six  or  seven  miles  in  width  in  its 
widest  part,  and  the  whole  distance  that  the  disciples  rowed  in 
crossing  could  not  have  been  more  than  four  miles.  It  is  clear  from 
this  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  well  acquainted  with 
this  sea. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  nowhere  in  this  Gospel  does  Tiberias, 
John's  notice  on  ^ie  Sea  of  Galilee,  occupy  any  prominence,  being 
of  Tiberias.  mentioned  only  once  (chap,  vi,  23)  as  the  place  from 
which  boats  had  come.  The  natural  explanation  is,  that  during  the 
ministry  of  Christ  it  was  a  place  of  no  importance,  as  it  was  founded 
by  Herod  Antipas,  who  was  banished  A.  D.  39.  Tiberias  was,  how 
ever,  a  place  of  great  importance  during  the  Jewish  war,  and  for  sev 
eral  centuries  subsequently.  How  natural  it  would  have  been  for  a 
forger  in  the  second  century  to  make  Tiberias  prominent  in  Christ's 
history !  In  several  places  in  this  Gospel  mention  is  made  of  Cana 
of  Galilee  (chaps,  ii,  i,  n  ;  iv,  46  ;  xxi,  2).  This  is  to  be  identified 
with  the  modern  village,  Kefr  Kenna,  containing  about  six  hundred 
inhabitants,  situated  about  five  miles  north-east  of  Nazareth,  on  the 
road  to  Tiberias,  and  to  other  points  on  the  coast  of  the  Sea  of  Gal 
ilee.  We  passed  by  this  place  in  1870  on  the  way  from  Tiberias  to 

1  Bellum  Jud.,  lib.  v,  cap.  ii,  sec.  3. 

3  Onomasticon.  This  work  was  originally  written  by  Eusebius  (who  was  bishop 
of  Cesarea  in  Palestine,)  and  was  translated  inio  Latin,  with  additions,  by  Jerome,  wno 
spent  a  large  portion  of  his  life  in  Bethlehem,  in  Palestine,  where  he  died. 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  605 

Nazareth,  and  found  in  it  the  remains  of  a  church.  Willibald ' 
(A.  D.  722)  visited  it  on  his  way  from  Nazareth  to  Mount  Tabor, 
ind  states :  "  A  large  church  stands  there,  and  near  the  altai  is  still 
preserved  one  of  the  six  vessels  which  our  Lord  commanded  to  fill 
with  water  to  be  turned  into  wine."  The  village  is  mentioned  by 
Saewulf a  (A.  D.  1102)  as  the  Cana  of  Galilee,  six  miles  north-east  of 
Nazareth,  where  Christ  turned  water  into  wine.  When  our  Saviour 
was  on  the  way  from  Jerusalem  to  Capernaum,  he  was  found  at  Cana 
(chap,  iv,  46) — where  he  was  visited  by  the  nobleman  whose  son 
was  sick — which  lies  on  the  way  from  Nazareth  to  Capernaum.  The 
Cana  suggested  by  Robinson,  eleven  miles  north  of  Nazareth,  is 
wholly  unsuitable  to  some  statements  in  this  Gospel,  as  well  as  to 
some  passages  in  Josephus.3  "The  Greek  Christians  of  Palestine," 
says  Dr.  Zeller,  "  never  doubted  the  identity  of  Kefr  Kenna  with  the 
Cana  of  the  Gospel."4 

In  chap,  xi,  54  it  is  said  that  Jesus  departed  from  the  vicinity  of 
Jerusalem,  and  "  went  unto  a  country  near  to  the  desert,  Christ's  visit  to 
into  a  city  called  Ephraim."  This  Ephraim  is  stated  by  Ephratm. 
Jerome  B  to  be  five  miles  east  of  Bethel,  with  which  place  it  is  con 
nected  by  Josephus,8  who  remarks  that  Vespasian  captured  "  Bethel 
and  Ephraim,  small  towns."  It  was  about  ten  miles  from  Jerusalem, 
and  near  the  desert.  Respecting  this  small  place,  then,  our  evan 
gelist  is  exact. 

In  chap,  i,  28  the  best  MSS.,  supported  by  the  Peshito-Syriac, 
read:  "These  things  were  done  in  Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  where 
John  was  baptizing."  The  English  version  here  has  Bethabara,  but 
Bethany  has  been  received  into  the  text  by  both  Tischendorf  and 
Tregelles.  Nothing  is  known  of  this  place  beyond  the  Jordan.  No 
one  in  his  right  mind  can  suppose  that  the  evangelist  has  transferred 
the  Bethany,  which  he  himself  tells  us  is  about  fifteen  furlongs  from 
Jerusalem  (chap,  xi,  18),  to  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan  ! 

The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  every  instance  in  which  he  can 
be  tested,  shows  a  most  accurate  knowledge  of  the  regions  where 
Christ  exercised  his  ministry;  such  knowledge  as  could  have  been 
possessed  alone  by  one  living  in  that  country,  unless  we  are  to  sup 
pose  that  the  author,  if  a  forger,  went  to  Palestine  purposely  to  study' 
the  country  and  to  mark  the  distances  of  places,  with  a  view  to  de 
ceive  !  But  all  his  geographical  statements  are  too  natural  to  have 
been  the  result  of  design  ! 

1  Early  Travels  in  Palestine,  Bonn's  edition,  p.  16.  a  Ibid.,  p.  47. 

'See  the  discussion  of  this  subject  in  my  Journey  to  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land, 
pp.  205-207.  4  In  Explorations  of  Palestinian  Society. 

'  Onomasticon.  Bellum  Jud.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  ix  sec.  9. 


606  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 


THE  EVANGELIST  GIVES  MANY  PARTICULARS  THAT  COULD  HAVE 
COME  ONLY  FROM  ONE  WHO  WAS  PRESENT  AT  THE  SCENES 
DESCRIBED. 

He  names  definitely,  "  the  next  day  "  (chap,  i,  35)  ;  "  about  the 
Passages  sug-  tentn  nour  "  (ver-  39)  I  s'lx  water  pots  and  the  contents  of 
gestinganeye-  each  (chap,  ii,  6) ;  the  definite  number  of  years  duiing 
which  the  Jews  said  the  temple  was  building  (ver.  20) ; 
the  hour  of  the  day  (about  the  sixth)  when  Jesus  sat  upon  the  well 
(chapter  iv,  6)  ;  the  time  Jesus  staid  among  the  Samaritans  (two 
days)  (ver.  49) ;  the  hour  at  which  the  fever  left  the  nobleman's  son 
(ver.  52) ;  that  the  pool  of  Bethesda  had  five  porches  '  (chap,  v,  2)  ; 
that  the  impotent  man  had  been  afflicted  thirty-eight  years.  The 
account  of  the  man  who  was  born  blind,  and  to  whom  sight  was 
given  by  Christ,  and  the  questions  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  answers 
(chap,  ix),  could  have  been  written  only  by  an  eyewitness.  The 
evangelist  gives  many  particulars  respecting  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  which  indicate  an  eyewitness.  He  gives  the  name  of  the 
high  priest's  servant2  whose  right  ear  Peter  cut  off  (chap,  xviii,  10). 
He  states  the  weight  of  the  myrrh  and  aloes  brought  by  Nicodemus 
for  the  burial  of  Christ  (chap,  xix,  39).  He  gives  particulars  respect 
ing  the  grave-clothes  after  Christ's  resurrection  (chap,  xx,  5-7) ;  the 
distance  that  the  disciples  dragged  the  net  (chap,  xxi,  8) ;  and  the 
number  of  fishes  that  were  in  it  (ver.  n). 

We  find  also  other  evidence  that  the  author  of  this  Gospel  was  an 
other  evidence  evewitness  of  the  life  of  Christ.  In  chap,  i,  14  he  says  : 
that  John  was  "  And  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begot- 
ess'  ten  of  the  Father."  In  chap,  xix,  35,  after  the  statement 
that  one  of  the  soldiers  pierced  the  side  of  Christ,  out  of  which  there 
immediately  came  blood  and  water,  the  evangelist  adds  :  "  And  he 
who  has  seen  it,  has  borne  testimony  to  it,  and  his  testimony  is  true, 
and  that  one  knows  that  he  speaks  the  truth  that  ye  may  believe." 
This  language  points  out  the  writer  himself  as  the  eyewitness  of  what 
he  describes.  The  use  of  the  perfect  tense  has  seen  (ewpa/twc)  and 
has  borne  testimony  (fJ,efj.aprv^r]Ks)  shows  that  the  witness  was  still 
living  when  the  Gospel  was  written  ;  and  the  declaration  that  the 
one  who  has  seen  it,  and  borne  testimony  to  it,  knows  that  he  speaks 
the  truth,  is  fully  conscious  of  it,  implies  the  writer  himself.  Nor  is 
this  inference  weakened  by  the  fact  that  the  witness  is  called  kitel- 

1  They  were,  of  course,  destroyed  with  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  70. 

*  He  says  (chap,  xviii,  15),  in  speaking  of  Peter  and  himself,  "  That  disciple  (him 
self)  was  known  unto  the  high  priest."  How  natural,  then,  that  he  should  know  the 
name  of  the  servant  fiom  his  having  visited  the  house,  in  all  probability. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  607 

rof,  that  one.  That  £«eh>oc,  that  one,  can  be  used  by  a  speaker 
or  writer  as  referring  to  himself,  is  clear  from  another  passage  in  this 
Gospel,  When  our  Saviour  asked  the  man  to  whom  he  had  given 
sight  if  he  believed  on  him,  and  he  answered,  "  Who  is  he,  Lord, 
that  I  may  believe  on  him  ?  "  Christ  said  to  him  :  "  Thou  hast  both 
seen  him,  and  he  who  is  talking  with  thee  is  that  one"  (enelvog)  (chap. 
ix,  37).  Here  Christ,  who  is  speaking,  calls  himself  that  one  (etcelvos)  ; 
of  course,  John  could  do  the  same.2 

In  several  places  in  this  Gospel  mention  is  made  of  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved  (chaps,  xiii,  23  ;  xix,  26  ;  xx,  2  ;  xxi,  The  author  of 
7,  20),  and  it  is  stated  that  "this  is  the  disciple  that  tes-  J^ospei  in- 
tifieth  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things:  and  we  xxi,  24. 
know  that  his  testimony  is  true  "  (chap,  xxi,  24).  The  whole  of  this 
twenty-  fourth  verse,  at  least  the  last  part  of  it,  "and  we  know  that 
his  testimony  is  true,"  was  in  all  probability  written  by  elders  of  the 
Church  at  Ephesus  as  an  attestation  to  this  Gospel,  before  it  was 
sent  abroad  into  the  Churches  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  name  of 
John  was,  doubtless,  prefixed  to  it.  It  would  have  been  unsuitable 
for  the  evangelist  to  say  of  himself:  "We  know  that  his  testimony 
is  true."  Certain  it  is,  indeed,  that  this  verse,  at  all  events,  testifies 
to  the  fact  that  this  Gospel  was  written  by  the  beloved  disciple.  And 
this  testimony  refers  to  the  entire  preceding  Gospel,  and  forbids  the 
idea  that  the  twenty-first  chapter  is  an  -addition  to  the  original  ac 
count.  Nor  has  there  ever  been  a  copy  of  John's  Gospel  found 
without  this  chapter. 

But  there  remains  the  question,  Was  this  beloved  disciple  John  ? 
This  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  as  no  other  ~ 

W  Uo   J  01  1  II     1  116 

disciple  satisfies  all  the  requirements  of  the  case.  Three  beloved  disci- 
of  our  Saviour's  disciples  —  Peter,  James,  and  John  —  were  p 
the  most  intimate  companions  of  their  Master.  These  he  took 
with  him  to  be  the  witnesses  of  his  transfiguration  (Matt,  xvii,  i  ; 
Mark  ix,  2  ;  Luke  ix,  28)  ;  and  to  be  his  companions  while  in  his 
agony  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  (Matt,  xxvi,  37).  On  another 
occasion,  "  he  suffered  no  man  to  follow  him  save  Peter,  James, 
and  John"  (Mark  v,  37).  It  was  these  three  disciples  who  asked 


1  The  Greek  is,  Kaxelvof  oldev  on  al.ijd?}  "kiyti,  and  that  one  knows  that  he  says  the 
truth. 

*  In  the  clouds  of  Aristophanes,  when  Strepsiades,  having  gone  upon  the  roof  oi 
the  school  of  Socrates,  is  setting  fire  to  it,  one  of  the  scholars  inquires:  "Who  is 
setting  fire  to  our  house  ?  "  To  which  Strepsiades  answers  :  "  That  one  (t/ceZvof)  whose 
cloak  you  stole."  But  it  was  the  cloak  of  Strepsiades  himself  that  had  been  stolen  ; 
so  that  he  calls  himself  cxeZvof,  just  as  John  does.  It  is  to  no  purpose  that  Hilgen- 
feld  objects  that  this  is  comedy  ;  for  it  is  Greek,  and  very  good  Greek,  too,  expressed 
In  the  clearest  manner. 


fi08  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Christ  privately  concerning  the  destruction  of  the  temple  (Mark 
xiii,  3). 

The  beloved  disciple  who  wrote  the  fourth  Gospel  could  not  be 
James,  for  he  was  killed  by  Herod  about  twelve  years  after  the  cru 
cifixion  of  Christ  (Acts  xii,  12).  Nor  could  it  have  been  Peter,  for 
the  beloved  disciple  is  distinguished  from  him  (John  xiii,  23,  24)  ;  so 
that  John  alone  is  the  remaining  intimate  companion  who  could  have 
written  the  fourth  Gospel.1  The  ancient  Christian  Church  never 
doubted  that  the  beloved  disciple  was  John,  who  leaned  upon  the 
breast  of  Christ.  Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus  in  the  last  part  of 
the  second  century,  and  Irenoeus  and  Origen  speak  of  it  as  a  well- 
known  fact. 

It  has,  however,  been  objected,  that  it  seems  improper  for  John  to 
designate  himself  as  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  as  this  is  a  re 
flection  on  his  associates.  But  even  supposing  that  it  was  not  in  good 
taste  for  him  to  do  so,  does  that  prove  that  he  never  did  it  ?  How 
many  things  have  been  done  in  what  is  called  "bad  taste  "  by  the 
greatest  and  holiest  of  men !  Paul  tells  us  that  he  withstood  Peter 
"to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed"  (Gal.  ii,  n).  Why 
might  not  John  do  something  for  which  he  could  be  blamed  ?  How 
far  a  writer  may  speak  of  the  intimate  relations  existing  between 
himself  and  eminent  men,  or  even  speak  in  commendation  of  him 
self,  is  a  matter  of  taste.  St.  Paul  declares  that  he  "  laboured  more 
abundantly  than  they  (apostles)  all  "  (i  Cor.  xv,  10)  ;  and  "  I  suppose/' 
says  he,  "  that  I  was  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles  " 
(2  Cor.  xi,  5). 

But  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  there  is  any  impropriety  in  John 
speaking  of  himself  as  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  The  Gospel 
and  the  First  Epistle  of  John  reveal  to  us  a  deep  moral  and  re 
ligious  nature,  and  a  most  affectionate  disposition.  Is  it  not,  then,  in 
the  highest  degree  probable  that  Christ  especially  loved  him  ?  It  is 
clear  from  the  other  Gospels,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  he  was 
one  of  the  favourites  of  Christ.  He  does  not  say  in  his  Gospel  that 
Jesus  loved  him  more  than  the  other  disciples,  though  this  might  be 
inferred.  He  makes  his  statements  on  this  point  with  a  great  deal 
of  delicacy.  But,  further,  when  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  all  the  other 
disciples,  except  Andrew,2  it  seems,  were  dead.  What  impropriety 

1  The  hypothesis  has  been  proposed  by  Liitzelberger  that  Andrew  was  the  be- 
loved  disciple.  But  it  is  evident  from  the  Gospels  that  Andrew  was  not  one  of  the 
intimate  disciples  of  Christ,  and  John  i,  40  seems  to  distinguish  him  from  the  au 
thor  of  the  Gospel,  for  one  of  the  two  disciples  named  is  Andrew,  and  the  other  ap 
pears  to  be  John. 

•According  to  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  Andrew  was  still  alive  when  John  wrote 
his  Gospel. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  609 

was  there  in  his  speaking,  then,  of  the  love  his  Saviour  had  for  him  ? 
To  illustrate  this  from  mere  human  relations  :  suppose  any  one  in 
writing  his  autobiography,  when  his  mother  was  dead,  and  all  his 
orothers  and  sisters,  too,  in  calling  to  mind  the  deep  affection  of  his 
mother  for  him,  should  state,  "I  was  a  favourite  child  of  my  mother," 
could  he  be  justly  censured  by  any  one?  Further,  John  nowhere 
makes  himself  prominent  in  his  Gospel.  He  nowhere  gives  his 
name  ;  but  Peter  here,  as  well  as  in  the  other  Gospels,  is  the  prom 
inent  disciple,  and  exhibits  the  same  traits  of  character  as  we  find  in 
them  ;  and  this  is  a  proof  of  the  true  historical  character  of  John's 
narrative. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  and  can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposi 
tion  that  the  Apostle  John  is  the  author  of  this  Gospel,  that  John 
the  Baptist  is  everywhere  called  simply  John.  In  this  Gospel  his 
name  occurs  nineteen  times.  In  Matthew  he  is  seven  times  called 
John  the  Baptist,  in  Mark  four  times,  and  in  Luke  four  times.  But 
it  was  quite  natural  in  John  the  evangelist  to  make  no  distinction 
between  Johns,  as  he  knew  but  one  of  that  name,  the  Baptist. 

The  chief  objection  brought  against  the  fourth  Gospel  is,  that  the 
picture  it  gives  of  the  person  of  Christ,  the  method  of  chief  objection 
his  teaching,  his  long  discourses  and  their  contents,  are  to  John's  GOS. 
different  from  what  we  find  in  the  other  three  Gospels.  Motion11  of 


There  is  in  this  objection  just  truth  enough  to  present  an   Christ- 
apparent  difficulty,  which,  however,  disappears  upon  careful  reflection. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  first  three  Gospels  give  an  exhaustive  view  of  the 
person  and  teachings  of  Christ,  since  but  one  *  of  the  authors  of  them 
was  an  eyewitness  of  the  acts  of  Christ,  and  heard  his  discourses. 
We,  indeed,  find  several  events  in  the  Gospel  of  John  which  must 
have  occurred,  but  are  not  recorded  in  the  other  Gospels,  especially 
our  Saviour's  visits  to  Jerusalem  a  at  the  great  festivals.  In  that 
city  he  must  have  performed  miracles,  taught,  and  been  drawn  into 
controversies  with  the  Jews,  just  as  is  recorded  in  John's  Gospel. 
The  statement  of  the  ancient  Church  is,  no  doubt,  correct,  that  John 
wrote  last  of  the  evangelists,  and  to  supply  the  omissions  of  the  others. 
It  is  certain  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  other  Gospels,  and  that 
his  Gospel  supplements  them. 

As  the  first  three  Gospels  set  forth  the  teachings  of  Christ  chiefly 
in  parables,  and  his  numerous  miracles  —  all  of  which  are  easily  trans- 

Mark  also  may  have  been  present  at  some  of  the  scenes  he  describes. 

"Christ's  teaching  in  Jerusalem  is  implied  in  Matt,  xxiii,  37  :  "  O  Jerusalem,  Jeru 
salem,  .  .  .  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,"  etc.  It  seems  also, 
from  Luke  xi,  51,  xiii,  22,  and  xvii,  u,  that  Christ  sometimes  went  up  to  Jerusalem 

VOL.  I  --3  9 


CIO  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

mitted  to  others,  and  well  adapted  to  the  purposes  of  instruction, 
but  do  net  enter  deeply  into  Christ's  relation  to  his  Fathe.T,  or  to  his 
followers — the  Gospel  of  John,  in  supplying  the  omissions  of  the 
other  three,  and  in  rarely  touching  the  same  points,  naturally  appears 
different  from  them.  This  Gospel,  it  is  true,  relates,  in  common 
with  them,  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  the  incidents  connected  with 
his  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  which  are  events  that  could  not  be 
omitted  in  any  history  of  our  Lord. 

The  relation  that  John  bears  to  Christ  resembles  that  of  Plato  to 
Socrates;  he  is  emphatically  the  philosophical  evangelist.  The 
representations  given  of  Socrates  by  Xenophon  and  Plato  seem  to 
be  different,  and  Bleek  well  observes :  "  Some  have  held  the  two 
to  be  irreconcilable,  and  that  for  the  most  part  Xenophon 's  represen 
tation  of  Socrates  is  alone  true,  and  they  have  deemed  the  Socrates 
of  Plato  to  be  purely  a  creature  of  his  imagination.  The  one-sided- 
ness  of  this  view  has  been  acknowledged  in  more  recent  times ;  for 
if  Socrates  had  appeared  as  a  teacher  merely  in  the  way  in  which 
he  appears  in  Xenophon,  if  the  speculative  element  was  not  really 
in  him  as  Plato  represents  it  to  be,  it  would  be  difficult  to  compre 
hend  how  from  him  several  highly  speculative  philosophical  schools 
could  have  proceeded.  Rather,  each  of  the  two  representations 
gives  us  Socrates  only  on  definite  sides,  the  union  of  which  affords 
us  a  more  complete  picture  of  him.  But  if  a  human  philosopher 
like  Socrates,  in  his  appearance,  has  exhibited  so  many  traits  that 
two  of  his  intimate  disciples  could  give  representations  of  their  mas 
ter  so  different,  and  which,  apparently,  have  so  little  in  common,  yet 
are  true,  this  is  still  more  conceivable  of  Christ,  of  him  who  must 
necessarily  present  in  his  person  and  life  a  still  richer  fulness,  since 
he  was  to  be  the  Redeemer  of  men  of  the  most  varied  individualities. 
It  is,  therefore,  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  we  shall  naturally  find 
that,  even  of  his  more  intimate  disciples,  one  has  more  fully  compre 
hended  and  appropriated  one  side  of  his -character  and  the  method 
of  his  operation,  while  another  has  the  other  side." ' 

We  may  observe  that,  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  reflected  from  differ 
ent  bodies,  gives  us  different  kinds  of  light,  all  of  which  exist  in  the 
sun,  so  we  have  from  the  different  evangelists  different  reflections  of 
the  person  of  Christ,  which,  combined,  give  us  a  complete  image  of 
him. 

But  there  are  not  wanting  in  the  other  Gospels  evidences  of 
similarities  ben  the  same  person  and  character  that  we  find  in  the  Christ 

STuie  other  of  John>  How  like  John  is  the  following  passage :  "All 
evangelists.  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father  :  and  no  man 

1  Einleitung,  by  Mangold,  pp.  224,  225. 


OF   THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  Gil 

knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Fa 
ther,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him  " 
(Matthew  xi,  27) ;  similar  to  this  is  Luke  x,  22.  Of  like  import  is  the 
language  of  Christ  to  Peter,  when  the  latter  acknowledged  him  as 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God:  "Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar-jona  :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my 
Father  who  is  in  heaven  "  (Matt,  xvi,  17).  The  language  of  Christ 
in  Matt,  xxviii,  18,  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,"  is  quite  similar  to  that  in  John  iii,  35,  "  The  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand."  Our  Lord's  argu 
ment  in  refuting  the  Sadducees,  that  because  God  calls  himself  the 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  not  being  the  God  of  the  dead 
but  of  the  living  (Matt,  xxii.  32;  Mark  xii,  26  ;  Luke  xx,  37,  38),  there 
fore  they  live  unto  Him,  is  of  a  highly  metaphysical  character,  equal 
to  almost  any  thing  of  the  kind  we  find  in  John.  The  question  our 
Saviour  put  to  his  hearers,  "  If  David  call  him  (Christ)  Lord,  how  is 
he  his  son?  "  (Matt,  xxii,  45),  is  also  of  a  metaphysical  character. 

The  Gospel  of  John,  it  is  true,  sets  forth  the  divinity  of  Christ 
clearly  and  strongly,  yet  it  does  not  contradict  what  is  taught  in  the 
other  Gospels,  as  may  be  inferred  from  passages  already  quoted. 
The  power  of  forgiving  sins  that  Christ  claimed  and  .exercised  (Matt. 
ix,  2-6;  Mark  ii,  5-10;  Luke  v,  20-24)  implies  his  divinity.  The 
Tubingen  school  of  critics,  the  chief  opponents  of  John's  Gospel, 
acknowledge  the  Apocalypse  to  be  the  writing  of  John,  and  in  this 
the  divinity  of  Christ  is  strongly  asserted.1  The  Apostle  Paul  asserts 
the  same  doctrine  in  the  undisputed  Epistle  to  the  Romans,8  to  say 
nothing  of  his  other  Epistles.  But  as  Paul  was  at  various  times  in 
the  company  of  the  apostles,  and  knew  many  who  were  acquainted 
vith  Christ,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  in  fundamental  principles 
here  was  a  difference  between  him  and  the  others.  He  must  have 
known  what  Christ  said  of  himself. 

The  main  question,  however,  in  respect  to  the  discourses  of  Christ 
as  recorded  by  John  is,  Are  they  related  as  they  were  Does  John  r&- 
delivered  by  Christ,  or  did  John  cast  them  into  his  own  ^St?sorre2£ 
mould  ?  and  is  it  not  possible  that  after  the  lapse  of  many  courses, 
years  he  may  have  attributed  to  Christ,  in  some  instances,  what  was 
the  result  of  his  own  experience  and  reflection?  It  must  be  ac 
knowledged  that  there  is  a  greater  liability  in  men  to  forget  dis 
courses  than  to  forget  remarkable  works.  What  the  eyes  behold  is 

1  For  example,  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending,  saith  the 
Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty  "  (chap,  i,  8  • 
see  also  chaps,  v,  8-14 ;  xvii,  14 ;  xxii,  13). 

*  "Christ,  who  is  God  over  all  blessed  for  ever"  (chap,  ix,  5). 


612  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

more  deeply  fixed  than  what  the  ears  hear.  The  miracles  of  Christ 
must  have  been  indelibly  impressed  upon  John's  mind  for  all  time. 
But  as  the  discourses  of  Christ  grew  out  of  certain  miracles  or  im 
portant  events,  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  his  words,  in  substance  at 
least,  faded  from  the  beloved  disciple's  mind;  and  it  is  not  neces 
sary  to  suppose  that  John  has  always  given  the  Saviour's  exact  lan 
guage  as  spoken  in  Aramaic.  That  John  should  intentionally  make 
Christ  utter  merely  his  ideas  is  inconceivable.  Our  Saviour  prom 
ised  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  to  bring  to  the  remembrance  of  the 
apostles  all  that  he  had  said  unto  them  (John  xiv,  26). 

We  have  already  remarked  on  the  striking  similarity  of  language 
and  conception  between  the  First  Epistle  of  John  and  his  Gospel, 
which  is  to  be  explained,  not  by  supposing  that  he  attributes  his  ideas 
to  Christ,  but  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Saviour,  in  the  form  in  which 
they  are  presented  in  the  Gospel,  produced  upon  John  the  deepest 
impression,  moulding  his  thoughts,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  their  form. 
The  Epistle  is  the  reflex  of  what  he  learned  from  Christ.  The  phil 
osophical  and  deeply  spiritual  truths  of  Christ's  teaching  found  in 
the  nature  of  this  apostle  a  sympathetic  response.  We  have  every 
reason  to  believe  that  the  discourses  of  Christ,  as  well  as  his  acts,  have 
been  related  .with  great  fidelity  by  this  evangelist.  It  is  not  improb 
able  that, 'at  a  very  early  period,  he  made  notes  of  our  Saviour's  dis 
courses,  and  perhaps,  also,  of  our  Saviour's  acts. 

A  proof  of  the  historical  character  of  the  remarks  of  Christ  is  found 
in  the  obscure  references  which  he  makes  to  his  crucifixion  and  res 
urrection  :  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up  " 
(chap,  ii,  19).  The  Jews  supposed  the  reference  was  to  their  tem 
ple  ;  but  the  evangelist  remarks,  "  He  spake  of  the  temple  of  his 
body."  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
unto  me"  (chap,  xii,  32).  "This,"  remarks  the  evangelist,  "he 
said,  signifying  what  death  he  should  die."  Of  an  obscure  nature, 
also,  without  the  subsequent  history,  is  the  remark:  "And  as  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man 
be  lifted  up  "  (chap,  iii,  14).  Christ  obscurely  refers  to  his  crucifix 
ion  and  resurrection  when  he  says  :  "  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  might 
take  it  again  "  (chap,  x,  17).  He  also  hints  at  his  resurrection  and 
ascension  in  these  words :  "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 
ascend  up  where  he  was  before  ?  "  (chap,  vi,  62).  If  the  passages  re 
ferring  to  Christ's  crucifixion  and  resurrection  had  been  invented, 
or  if  his  genuine  expressions  on  this  subject  had  passed  through  one 
or  two  hands,  they  would  have  assumed  a  more  definite  form.  In  the 
other  Gospels  Christ  is  represented  as  foretelling  his  death  and  resur 
rection  with  more  precision  (Matt,  xvi,  21 ;  Mark  viii,  31 ;  Luke  ix,  22) 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  C13 

A  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  discourses  of  Christ  may  be 
drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  impression  made  by  them  is  Marks  of  gen- 
given,  and  the  misunderstanding  of  them  in  several  in-   uineness  in  the 
.    /  ,  x     reports  of  the 

stances  is  stated  (chaps,  vu,  33-36;  vin,  21,  22,  etc.).   discourses   or. 

This,  however,  will  appear  more  clearly  from  the  consid-  Christ  by  John, 
eration  of  the  discourses  themselves,  which  will  be  found  to  contain 
nothing  unsuitable  for  Christ  to  have  taught,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
to  bear  internal  marks  of  genuineness.  Chapter  iii  contains  a  con 
versation  of  our  Saviour  with  Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews,  in 
which  he  sets  forth  the  spiritual  nature  of  his  kingdom,  and  teaches 
the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth.  That  a  Jewish  ruler  should  come 
secretly  to  Christ  by  night,  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  to  learn  his  doc 
trines,  is  not  at  all  incredible.  Nicodemus  declares  his  conviction 
that  Christ  is  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  and  he  was  doubtless  anxious 
to  know  what  was  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  that  Christ  was  about 
to  set  up.  In  opposition  to  Jewish  expectation,  Christ  assures  him 
that  his  kingdom  is  spiritual,  to  enter  which  it  is  necessary  to  be 
born  again.  The  short,  pithy  form  in  which  Christ  teaches  regener 
ation  accords  with  his  general  method  of  teaching  in  the  other  Gos 
pels.  Regeneration  is  taught  by  the  apostles  in  the  Acts  and  in  the 
Epistles,  and  the  doctrine  must  have  been  derived  from  Christ  him 
self.  In  Matt,  xviii,  3  Christ  says:  "  Except  ye  be  converted,  and 
become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."1 

The  conversation  of  Christ  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  at  Jacob's 
well  has  in  it  all  the  marks  of  genuineness,  and  contains  the  pro- 
foundest  passage  in  the  New  Testament  (chap,  iv,  24).  The  con 
troversy  with  the  Jews  in  chap,  v  grew  out  of  our  Saviour's  healing 
the  impotent  man  on  the  Sabbath  day,  to  which  they  took  exception ; 
and  the  whole  discussion  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  character 
of  Christ,  and  that  of  his  Jewish  adversaries.  The  profoundly  spir 
itual,  and,  at  the  same  time,  metaphorical,  discourse  of  Christ  in  chap 
ter  vi,  grew  out  of  his  feeding  about  five  thousand  men  with  a  few 
loaves  and  fishes,  also  recorded  in  the  other  Gospels.  The  multi 
tude  having  been  fed,  it  was  natural  that  some  of  them  would  follow 
Christ  for  the  loaves  and  fishes.  These  he  rebukes,  and  exhoits  to 
labor  for  the  meat  that  perisheth  not.  This  has  the  genuine  stamp 
of  Christ's  teaching,  as  appears  from  the  other  Gospels.  This  is  fol 
lowed  by  the  statement  that  Christ  is  the  bread  of  life,  etc.  How 
natural  and  connected  the  discourse  is,  and  how  natural  was  the  ef- 

1  Strauss,  to  get  rid  of  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  to  John's  Gospel,  supposes 
that  this  father,  when  he  gives  John  iii,  3,  had  in  mind  Matt,  xviii,  3.  In  that  case 
he  must  have  considered  Matthew  and  John  to  be  identical  on  this  point. 


614  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

feet  of  his  spiritual  teaching,  which  sifted  them.  "  From  that  time 
many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him  " 
(chap,  vi,  66).  In  Christ's  discussion  with  the  Jews  in  chapter  viii 
it  is  clear  that  his  words  are  really  given,  for  in  several  instances  the 
Jews  put  upon  them  a  construction  different  from  their  true  meaning 
(vers.  22,  33,  57,  etc.).  The  healing  of  the  blind  man  in  chapter  ix, 
and  the  discussion  thereon,  has  all  the  marks  of  reality,  and  must 
have  been  recorded  by  an  eyewitness. 

In  chap,  x  Christ  puts  forth  the  parable  of  a  shepherd,  which  the 
evangelist  states  "  they  "  did  not  understand,  whereupon  Christ  de 
clares  himself  to  be  the  door  and  shepherd  of  the  sheep.  This 
method  of  teaching  by  parable  is  very  similar  to  what  is  found  in 
the  other  Gospels,  especially  the  parable  of  the  sower  (Matt,  xiii, 
3-23;  Mark  iv,  3-20;  Luke  viii,  5-15),  in  which,  doubtless,  the 
sower  represents  Christ  himself.  In  chapters  xiii,  3i-xvii  the  evan 
gelist  gives  us  our  Saviour's  last  discourse  with  his  disciples  at  sup 
per  on  the  night  of  his  betrayal.  This  address,  or  rather  conversa 
tion,  did  not  require  more  than  a  half  hour  for  its  delivery,  at  any 
rate.  That  such  a  discourse  should  be  delivered  to  the  disciples  was 
exceedingly  appropriate,  and  quite  necessary.  This,  it  is  true,  pre 
supposes  that  the  Saviour  knew  that  it  was  his  last  meal  with  them — 
a  supposition  we  are  authorized  to  make  from  the  general  statements 
of  the  Gospels. 

In  the  very  midst  of  this  discourse  our  Saviour  says,  "  Arise,  let  us 
go  hence  "  (chap,  xiv,  31)  ;  but  yet  there  is  no  indication  that  Christ 
left  the  room.  It  appears  that  he  made  an  attempt  to  start,  but, 
without  really  leaving,  he  continued  the  discourse.  But  how  unnat 
ural  it  would  have  been  for  any  one  in  making  up  a  speech  to  insert 
these  apparently  useless  words  in  the  midst  of  it ! 

In  two  instances  the  evangelist  does  not  distinguish  clearly  between 
the  language  of  the  Baptist  and  his  own.  In  chapter  i,  15,  in  the 
midst  of  a  description  of  the  glories  of  Christ,  he  declares :  "  John 
bare  witness  of  him,  and  cried,  saying,  This  was  he  of  whom  I  spake, 
He  that  cometh  after  me  is  preferred  before  me ;  for  he  was  before 
me."  Heie  end  the  words  of  the  Baptist,  which  are  thrown  in  par 
enthetically,  and  the  evangelist  resumes  the  interrupted  thread: 
"And  of  his  fulness  have  we  all  received,  and  grace  for  (upon) 
grace,"  etc.  Any  one  examining  this  and  the  two  following  verses 
will  see  clearly  that  the  evangelist  could  never  have  intended  them 
to  be  understood  as  the  words  of  the  Baptist.  In  chapter  in,  27-30, 
ending  it  would  seem  with  the  words,  "  He  (Christ)  must  increase, 
but  I  must  decrease,"  the  evangelist  gives  another  testimony  of  the 
Baotist  to  Christ;  but  the  following  verses  (31-36),  not  sepaiated 


OF  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  CIS 

from  the  preceding  ones,  do  not  suit  the  Baptist,  but  appear  to  be 
a  commentary  of  the  evangelist  upon  his  testimony.  In  the  written 
language  of  the  moderns  the  use  of  quotation  marks  enables  us  to 
distinguish  accurately  between  what  the  writer  says  in  his  own  per 
son,  and  what  he  introduces  as  a  quotation  from  another.  But  as 
these  marks  were  not  in  use  when  the  evangelist  wrote,  the  language 
quoted  can  be  determined  from  the  context  only,  which,  in  some 
cases,  it  may  be  difficult  to  do. 

THE   LOGOS   (WORD)    IN  JOHN'S    GOSPEL. 

In  the  very  first  verse  of  his  Gospel  John  tells  us  that  "  In  the  be 
ginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos  was  with  God,  Theterm"i/>- 
and  the  Logos  was  God."  And  in  verse  14  he  states  JSneSLsSS 
that  "  the  Logos  (Word)  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  from  pwio. 
us."  The  question  here  arises,  Is  this  doctrine  consistent  with(the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  Gospel  ?  This  must  be  answered  in  the  af 
firmative.  Even  if  the  idea  of  the  Logos  came  originally  from  the 
Greeks,  and  was  unknown  to  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  the  long  abode 
of  John  in  Ephesus  among  cultivated  Greeks  must  have  made  him 
familiar  with  it,  as  it  appears  in  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrian 
Jew,  Philo  (*  about  B.  C.  20) ;  for  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the 
Gospel  of  John  was  written  before  A.  D.  80.  But  it  is  not  at  all 
necessary  to  attribute  to  Philo  the  origin  of  the  expression  used  by 
the  evangelist.  A  foundation  was  already  laid  in  the  Old  Testament 
for  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  or  Word,  possessing  the  attributes  of 
divinity.  When  God  promises  to  send  his  angel  before  the  Israel- 
ites,  he  warns  them  not  to  provoke  him,  "  for  my  name  (divinity)  is 
in  him"  (Exod.  xxiii,  21).  In  the  Book  of  Proverbs  we  find  wis 
dom  personified  (chap,  i,  20-33),  especially  in  chapter  viii,  where  she 
represents  herself  as  being  from  everlasting,  present  at  the  creation ; 
"and  I  was  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  always  before  him."  In  the 
apochryphal  writer,  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  (chap,  xxiv),  wisdom  is 
personified,  and  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  wisdom  is  hypostasized 
and  clothed  with  attributes  (vii,  22). 

In  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  on  the  Pentateuch,  made  into  Chaldee 
about  the  time  of  Christ  for  the  use  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  we  find 
KTD'O,  Memra  (Word,  Logos),  used  for  a  divine  personage,  especially 

to  avoid  an  anthropomorphism,  as,  "  They  heard  the  voice  of  The 
Mtmra  (The  Word)  of  Jehovah  God  walking  in  the  garden  (Gen. 
iii,  8) ;  or  an  anthropopathism,  as,  "  Jehovah  repented  through  his 
Memra  ( Word)  that  he  had  made  man  upon  the  earth  "  (Gen.  vi,  6). 
Buxtorf  remarks  on  KTTD,  Memra,  "The  Targumist  (Onkelos)  is  ac- 
customed  to  use  this  divine  name  (Jehovah)  by  means  of  The  Memra 


616  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 


of  Jehovah,  as  the  evangelist  John  says,  6  Aoyof"  (The  Word).1 
The  second  definition  given  of  Memra  by  Rabbi  Levy  is,  "The  Word 
considered  as  a  person,  especially  "1  frOD'D  (Memra  of  Jehovah),  the 
Word  of  God,  for  The  Being  (Wesen),  the  Personality  of  God,  6  Ad. 
yoc"  (The  Logos).8 

In  the  face  of  these  facts  it  is  not  necessary  to  resort  to  PHlo  to 
explain  the  Logos  of  John's  Gospel.  Further,  John's  conception  of 
the  Logos  is  entirely  different  from  that  of  Philo.  In  Philo  the  of 
fice  of  the  Logos  is  "  to  fill  up  the  chasm  between  the  pure  Being 
and  the  real  world,  to  make  possible  the  creation  of  the  world,  and 
the  influence  of  God  upon  it  ;  and,  at  least,  where  the  Greek  element 
in  his  philosophy  prevails,  the  Logos  is  regarded  as  a  relatively  inde 
pendent  personality,  as  a  second  God  (6  $£0£  b  devrepoc),  while  the 
formula  of  the  Gospel  (6  Aoyo^  od$%  eyevero,  i.  e.,  the  Word  was  made 
man)  can  designate  only  the  realization  of  the  divine  idea  in  a  man. 
This  difference  of  the  conception  of  the  Logos  in  the  evangelist  and 
in  Philo  is,  in  its  ultimate  ground,  the  consequence  of  a  profound 
difference  in  their  conceptions  of  God."8 

De  Groot  well  observes  that  in  the  system  of  Philo  the  idea  of  the 
Logos  becoming  incarnate  would  have  been  as  absurd  as  the  conver 
sion  of  light  into  darkness,  truth  into  falsehood  ;  and  that  John  set 
himself  in  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  his  doctrine  of  the 
incarnate  Word.4  It  is  evident,  then,  that  Justin  Martyr  and  other 
fathers  of  the  second  century  derived  their  doctrine  of  the  incarna 
tion  of  the  Logos  from  John,  an  apostolical  authority  without  whicn 
they  would  not  have  ventured  upon  the  bold  assertion  that  the  Logos 
became  incarnate.  Also  in  the  Apocalypse  (chap,  xix,  13)  Christ  is 
called  the  Word  (Logos)  of  God.  It  must  be  observed,  in  conclu 
sion,  that  John  uses  the  term  Logos  only  in  the  introduction,  and 
that  he  never  represents  Christ  as  calling  himself  by  that  title. 

THE  ALLEGED  DISCREPANCY  BETWEEN  JOHN  AND  THE  OTHER 
EVANGELISTS  RESPECTING  THE  DAY  OF  THE  MONTH  ON  WHICH 
CHRIST  WAS  CRUCIFIED. 

The  evangelists  unanimously  agree  that  Christ  was  crucified  on 
the  day  before  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  but  it  has  been  disputed  whether 
this  was  the  i4th  or  i5th  of  the  month  Nisan  —  the  day  before,  or  the 
first  day  of,  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  It  appears  from  the  first  three 
Gospels  that  Christ  ate  the  passover  on  the  evening  preceding 

1  Rabbinical  and  Talmudical  Lexicon,  col.  125. 

2  Chaldaisches  Worterbuch,  Zweiter  Band,  p.  32. 

3  Wittichen,  on  John's  Gospel,  pp.  13,  14,  (German  edition.) 
4Basilides,  Als  Erster  Zeuge,  u.  s.  w.,  p.  125. 


OF  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  617 

the  day  on  which  he  was  crucified  (Matt,  xxvi,  17-29;  Mark  xiv 
12-25;  Luke  xxii,  7-20).  In  the  statement  made  by  these  evan 
gelists  there  is  no  reference  to  Christ's  anticipating  the  regular  day 
of  the  eating  of  the  passover — the  evening  of  the  i4th  day  of  Nisan — 
and  eating  it  on  the  i3th. 

John  states  that  "before  the  feast  of  the  passover,  when  Jesus 
knew  that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  out  John  ^  ^ 
of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his  own  compared  with 
which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end.  J 
And  during  supper,  the  devil  having  now  put,"  etc.  (chap,  xiii,  i,  2). 
It  is  very  probable  that  the  supper  here  referred  to  is  the  paschal 
supper,  since  it  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  words  "  before 
the  passover."  If  it  was  one  day  before  the  passover,  it  is  very  likely 
that  John  would  have  so  stated  it.  As  the  other  evangelists  had 
given  an  account  of  the  celebration  of  the  passover  by  Christ  and  his 
disciples,  John  may  have  thought  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  relate  it. 
In  John  xviii,  28  it  is  stated  :  "  And  they  themselves  (the  Jews)  went 
not  into  the  judgment  hall,  lest  they  should  be  defiled  ;  but  that  they 
might  eat  the  passover."  If  we  are  to  understand  by  eating  the  pass- 
over  eating  the  paschal  lamb,  we  shall  find  John  in  contradiction 
with  the  other  evangelists,  unless  we  suppose  that  Christ  anticipated 
that  observance  by  one  day.  But  there  is  no  necessity  for  so  inter 
preting  the  language  of  John,  as  the  passover  festival  lasted  seven 
days  (Exod.  xii,  15,  19  ;  Lev.  xxiii,  34-36).  According  to  Num. 
xxviii,  18,  19,  on  the  first  day  of  the  passover  festival  (the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  month)  "  two  young  bullocks  and  one  ram,  and  seven 
lambs  of  the  first  year  "  were  to  be  offered  to  Jehovah,  in  addition 
to  which  other  offerings  were  to  be  made  on  that  day.  These  offer 
ings  of  the  day  following  the  evening  on  which  the  paschal  lamb  was 
eaten,  and  called  by  the  Rabbies  Chagtga,  may  be  referred  to  by 
John  in  the  phrase,  "  that  they  might  eat  the  passover."  In  this  way 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  Tholuck,  Hengstenberg,  Olshausen,  and  others  under, 
stand  the  passage,  in  proof  of  which  reference  is  made  to  2  Chron. 
xxx,  22,  where,  in  speaking  of  the  passover,  it  is  said:  "And  they 
did  eat  throughout  the  feast  seven  days,  offering  peace-offerings/' 
etc.  This  view  can  be  supported  also  by  Deut.  xvi,  2  :  "  Thou  shalt 
therefore  sacrifice  the  passover  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  of  the  flock 
and  the  herd,"  etc.  Here  "  to  sacrifice  the  passover  "  mean:  not 
only  the  paschal  lamb,  but  the  offerings  of  the  subsequent  days. 
Consequently,  "  to  eat  the  passover  "  may  refer  to  the  eating  of  the 
offerings  during  the  festival. 

Further,  the  defilement  contracted  by  entering  the  judgment  hall 
of  Pilate  (about  the  same  as  entering  the  house  of  a  heathen)  needed 


618  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

not  to  have  lasted  longer  than  sunset  of  that  day,1  so  that  after  that 
time  they  could  have  eaten  the  paschal  lamb,  if  they  had  nut  already 
done  so.2  In  view  of  this  fact,  John  can  scarcely  refer  to  eating  the 
paschal  lamb  on  the  eve  of  that  day,  but  the  offerings  on  that  day. 

John  also  states  that  the  day  on  which  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
Meaning  of  the  "  was  the  preparation  of  the  passover,  and  about  the  sixth 
prepSatioifof  nour  "  (chap,  xix,  14),  in  which  he  carefully  states  the 
the  passover.  time  of  the  event.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  : 
napaaKevfj  rov  n  'da%a,  preparation  of  the  passoiwr  ?  Ilapatr/cei;?),  prepa 
ration,  occurs  six  times  in  the  Gospels,  three  of  which  are  found  in 
the  first  three,  in  which  it  unquestionably  means  the  day  before  the 
Jewish  sabbath  (Friday),  (Matt,  xxvii,  62  ;  Mark  xv,  42  ;  Luke 
xxiii,  54).  It  is  also  clear  that  John  uses  the  word  in  chap,  xix,  31, 
"  Because  it  was  the  preparation,"  and  also  in  verse  42,  "  Because 
of  the  Jews'  preparation,"  in  the  sense  of  Friday,  or  the  day  before 
the  sabbath.  With  these  facts  before  us,  it  is  most  natural  to  inter 
pret  John  xix,  14,  "  It  was  the  preparation  of  the  passover,"  in  the 
same  way  —  the  preparation,  or  Friday,  during  the  passover  —  which 
harmonizes  completely  with  the  other  Gospels.  Josephus  3  also  calls 
Friday  preparation,  and  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  the  Jews 
ever  called  the  day  before  a  festival  preparation.  In  the  spurious 
epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Philippians  4  the  phrase,  odftfiarov  rov  Tracr^a, 
sabbath  of  the  passover,  and  in  the  Ecclesiastical  History  B  of  Soc 
rates  the  phrase,  rd  adpfiarov  r^g  eopr^c,  sabbath  of  the  feast,  are  sim 
ilar  in  construction  to  the  preparation  of  the  passover. 

But  here  arises  the  question,  Would  the  Jews  have  condemned 
Notim  robabie  Christ  to  death  on  the  first  day  of  the  great  festival  of 
that  our  Lord  the  passover  ?  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  bitter  hate  and 
deatoon^eLS  a  blind  zeal  for  the  honour  of  Jehovah  would  not  do. 
day-  Many  things  occur  in  the  world's  history  which,  in  them- 

selves,  are  very  improbable,  but  are  made  certain  by  testimony.  We 
cannot  conceive  how  the  first  three  evangelists  could  have  repre 
sented  Christ  as  being  crucified  on  the  day  following  the  paschal 
supper,  had  it  not  been  really  so.  They  were  too  intimately  ac 
quainted  with  the  facts  to  make  a  mistake  on  such  a  point  as  this. 
Even  on  the  supposition  that  they  had  no  sure  evidence  to  guide 
them,  they  were  too  intimately  acquainted  with  Jewish  customs  to 
assign  the  condemnation  and  crucifixion  of  Christ  to  the  first  day 
of  the  passover,  if  it  had  been  abhorrent  to  the  custom  of  their  na 
tion  to  condemn  any  one  to  death  on  that  day.  It  must  be  espe- 


'This  defilement  the  Jews  term  fc^n  ^1£,  an  ablution  performed  in  the  daytime 
See  Lightfoot  on  John  xviii,  28.  a  This  is  clear  from  Lev.  xxii,  6,  7. 

8Antiq.,  xvi,  6,  2.  *  Cap.  xiii.  'Lib.  v,  22. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  619 

cially  borne  in  mind  that  Christ  was  brought  before  the  high  priest 
Caiaphas  early  in  the  morning,  and  that  he  was  delivered  to  death 
and  executed  by  Pilate  and  the  Roman  soldiers,  who  were  heathen. 

That  criminals  might  be  condemned  to  death  and  executed  on  a 
feast  day  appears  evident  from  ancient  Jewish  authorities.  Tholuck 
gives  the  following  passages  bearing  on  this  point:  "The  Sanhedrim 
assembled  in  the  session-room  of  the  stone  chamber  from  the  time 
of  the  morning  offering  to  that  of  the  evening,  but  on  the  sabbaths 
and  feast  days  they  assembled  themselves  within  Vn|,  which  is  the  lou<er 
wall,  which  surrounded  the  greater,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fort  court  of 
the  women." '  **  An  elder  who  does  not  subject  himself  to  the  judg 
ment  of  the  Sanhedrim  shall  be  taken  from  the  place  where  he  lives  to 
Jerusalem,  shall  be  kept  there  until  one  of  the  three  feasts,  and  shall  be 
killed  at  the  time  of  the  feast,  for  the  reason  stated  Deut.  xvii,  13. "a 

Nor  could  John  be  ignorant  of  the  time  at  which  Christ  was  cru 
cified,  whether  it  was  the  day  after  the  paschal  supper  or  not ;  so  that 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  real  discrepancy  can  exist  between  him 
and  the  other  evangelists  on  this  point.  And  if  a  writer  of  the  sec 
ond  century,  or  even  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first,  without  apostolical 
authority,  had  written  this  Gospel,  he  would  have  taken  especial  care 
to  adhere  closely  to  the  letter  and  apparent  facts  of  the  other  Gospels. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  is  \hzpassover  controversy  that  arose 
in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century.  Polycrates,  bish-  The  passover 
op  of  Ephesus,  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  others,  ^  "h^Jicient 
kept  the  i4th  of  Nisan  as  the  passover  festival,  while  the  Church, 
great  mass  of  Christians  kept  a  Friday  in  commemoration  of  Christ's 
death,  and  the  following  Sunday  in  commemoration  of  his  resurrec 
tion,  without  regard  to  the  day  of  the  month.  Polycrates  states  that 
the  Apostle  John  also  kept  the  i4th  Nisan.3  "  In  the  Christian  as 
semblies,"  says  Gieseler,4  "  the  Jewish  passover  was  at  first  kept  up,  but 
observed  with  reference  to  Christ,  the  true  passover  (i  Cor.  v,  7,  8)." 
On  the  other  hand,  Neander  thinks  that  "  in  the  Churches  in  Asia 
Minor  the  Christians  who  followed  the  Johannean  tradition  went  on 
the  supposition  that  the  i4th  day  of  Nisan  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
the  day  of  Christ's  passion.'" 

If  we  suppose,  in  opposition  to  what  we  have  already  argued,  that 
John's  Gospel  indicates  that  Christ  was  crucified  on  the  i4th  Nisan, 
which  is  the  view  of  Neander,  Bleek,  and  others,  and  that  he  cele 
brated  the  passover  a  day  earlier  than  the  regular  time,  and  that  the 

'Gemara  Tr.  Sanhedrim,  chap.  x. 

'Mischna  Sanh.,  *,  4,  in  Tholuck's  Commentary  on  John,  Krauth's  translation, 
'In  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxiv.         *  Church  Hist,  vol.  i,  pp.  166,  167. 
'General  Church  History,  p.  298. 


620  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

Christians  of  Asia  Minor,  with  the  Apostle  John,  observed  'ihe  i4th 
day,  the  question  arises,  How  does  this  affect  the  genuineness  of 
John's  Gospel  ?  To  which  we  answer,  It  does  not  affect  it  at  all ;  for 
we  do  not  know  whether  the  Christians'of  Asia  Minor  kept  the  i4th 
in  commemoration  of  Christ's  crucifixion,  or  because  on  that  day  he 
had  eaten  his  last  passover  with  his  disciples,  or  because  it  was  the 
regular  passover  day. 

The  only  way  in  which  John's  observance  of  the  I4th  Nisan  as  a 
passover  festival  would  apparently  stand  in  contradiction  to  the 
fourth  Gospel  is  by  supposing  that  the  latter  places  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ  on  the  i4th  Nisan,  and  that  the  festival  kept  by  the  Apostle 
John  on  the  i4th  was  in  commemoration  of  the  eating  of  the  paschal 
lamb  by  Christ  on  that  day.  But  neither  of  these  suppositions  is  es 
tablished,  and  if  both  were  true,  the  practice  of  John  would  not  be 
necessarily  in  conflict  with  the  fourth  Gospel.  For,  on  his  coming 
from  Palestine  to  Ephesus,  some  time  after  A.  D.  60,  and  finding  the 
Churches  in  that  city  and  vicinity,  founded  by  Paul  and  his  asso 
ciates,  celebrating  the  i4th  of  Nisan  as  the  time  of  the  last  paschal 
supper  of  Christ,  he  would  naturally  unite  with  them  in  celebrating 
the  regular  passover  day.  Or  are  we  to  suppose  that  he  would  have 
insisted  upon  their  keeping  the  i3th?  It  is  clear  from  the  New 
Testament  that  the  apostles  laid  little  stress  on  festive  days. 

THE    REJECTION    OF  JOHN'S  GOSPEL  BY   THE    ALOGIANS  (ALOGl). 

Toward  the  end  of  the  second  century  there  arose  in  Thyatira,  a 
small  town  in  Asia  Minor,  a  party  who  distinguished  themselves  by 
the  rejection  of  both  the  Gospel  and  Apocalypse  of  John,  and  are 
called  Alogi  (Alogians)  by  Epiphanius,  in  the  last  part  of  the  fourth 
century,  because  they  rejected  the  Logos  ( Word}  proclaimed  by  John.2 

It  is,  doubtless,  to  this  same  party  that  Irenaeus  refers  in  the  fol- 
Aiogian  lowing  language  :  "  Others — that  they  may  make  void  the 
ed  Sift  of  the  sPirit»  which  in  the  most  recent  times  accord- 
oy  party  spirit,  ing  to  the  pleasure  of  the  Father  has  been  shed  upon  the 
human  race — do  not  admit  that  form  (of  manifestation)  which  is  ac 
cording  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  which  the  Lord  promised  that  he 
would  send  the  Paraclete  (Comforter),  but  at  the  same  time  they 
reject  both  the  Gospel  and  the  prophetic  spirit  "  8  (Apocalypse). 

1  This  party  received  John's  Gospel.     See  p.  589.  "Haeresis,  li,  cap.  iii. 

*  Alii,  vero  ut  donum  Spiritus  frustrentur  quod  in  novissimis  temporibus  secundum 
placitum  Patris  effusum  est  in  humanum  genus,  illam  speciem  non  admittunt,  qua 
est  secundum  Joannis  evangelium,  in  qua  Paracletum  se  misaurum  Dominus  pro- 
misit ;  sedsimul  et  evangelium  et  propheticum  repellunt  Spiritum. — Contra  Hcereses. 
lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  9. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES  621 

Hippolytus,  it  seems,  wrote  against  this  sect  in  his  work  entitled, 
Arro-loy/a  vrrep  rov  Kara  ludvvTjv  evayyeA/ou  teal  A'noKaXvipea)^,  A 
Defense  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John  and  the  Apocalypse.  These 
Alogians  were  violent  opponents  of  the  Montanists — who  laid  claim 
to  extraordinary  spiritual  powers,  based  chiefly  on  the  gift  of  the 
Paraclete  promised  in  John's  Gospel — and  of  the  Millenarians,  who 
derived  their  chief  support  from  the  Apocalypse;  and  it  seems  that 
they  were  led  to  reject  these  two  important  works  of  John  in  order 
to  take  away  the  very  foundation  of  the  doctrines  of  their  adver 
saries.  The  sect  was  obscure,  and  neither  Origen  nor  Eusebius 
makes  any  mention  of  it.  As  far  as  we  know,  the  Alogians  were  the 
only  opponents  of  John's  Gospel.  They  alleged  no  want  of  evidence 
for  its  apostolic  origin,  but  represented  it  as  being  at  variance  with 
the  other  Gospels,  and  attributed  it  to  Cerinthus,  a  noted  heretic  in 
the  last  part  of  the  first  century,  which  fact  is  a  strong  proof  that 
this  Gospel  belongs  to  the  first  century.  Nor  can  the  Tubingen 
school,  the  chief  modern  opponents  of  John's  Gospel,  consistently 
lay  any  stress  on  its  rejection  by  the  Alogians,  as  they  also  rejected 
the  Apocalypse,  which  these  sceptics  defend  as  the  writing  of  the 
Apostle  John. 

CONCLUSION. 

Renan  remarks  on  this  Gospel :  "  Every  one  who  will  undertake 
to  write  the  life  of  Jesus  without  a  fixed  theory  respect-  R(snan.g  blf.h 
ing  the  relative  value  of  the  Gospels,  allowing  himself  estimate  of  the 
to  be  guided  only  by  the  feeling  of  the  subject,  will  be  fourth  GospeL 
led  in  many  cases  to  prefer  the  narrative  in  the  fourth  Gospel  to  that 
of  the  synoptics.  The  last  words  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  in  particular,  are 
explained  only  by  this  Gospel ;  several  facts  respecting  the  Passion, 
unintelligible  in  the  synoptics,  assume  in  the  narrative  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  probability  and  possibility."  ]  Upon  the  discourses  of  Christ 
in  this  Gospel  he  does  not  set  much  value,  and  considers  them  to  be, 
for  the  most  part,  the  views  of  the  evangelist  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Christ.  This  Gospel,  he  thinks,  was  written  in  the  last  part  of  the 
first  century  by  some  one  in  the  circle  of  John's  followers  in  Asia 
Minor,  who  has  given  in  the  name  of  his  master  a  free  edition  of  it.* 

But  why  should  the  evangelist  profess  that  he  was  an  apostle,  if  he 
was  not?  If  he  derived  his  history  of  Christ  from  John,  why  should 
he  not  have  so  stated  it,  just  as  Luke  states  the  sources  of  his  Gospel  ? 
Mark,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  ancients,  derived  the  mate 
rial  of  his  narrative  from  the  preaching  of  Peter,  yet  the  name  of 
Peter  was  never  prefixed  to  it.  Re*nan  concedes  that  the  Gospel 
and  the  First  Epistle  of  John  have  the  same  author,  and  in  each  the 
1  Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  IxxviL  *  Ibid.,  Ixvii 


CC2  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STULY 

author  professes  to  be  an  eyewitness  of  Christ's  life,  so  that  if  John, 
or  at  least  an  apostle,  was  not  their  author,  both  works  are  forgeries. 
But  if  any  one  during  the  lifetime  of  John  had  written  a  Gospel  in 
the  name  of  that  apostle,  he  would  certainly  have  disclaimed  its  au 
thorship  ;  and  after  his  death  such  a  work  could  not  have  been  suc 
cessfully  forged  in  his  name,  for  it  would  have  been  well  known  that 
John  wrote  no  Gospel.  And  in  order  that  such  a  work  should  meet 
with  any  favour  whatever,  it  would  have  been  necessary  that  it 
should  set  forth  the  Gospel  as  preached  by  John,  and  in  that  case 
what  could  a  forger  accomplish  by  his  spurious  production?  It  is, 
indeed,  clear  that  our  Gospel  could  never  have  been  composed  from 
mere  tradition,  as  its  statements  are  too  definite  to  have  proceeded 
from  any  one  except  an  eyewitness.  Renan  thinks  highly  of  the  nar 
rative  portion  of  John,  as  we  hav.e  seen,  but  does  not  attribute  a  high 
value  to  the  discourses.  But  the  discourses  are  so  blended  with,  and 
so  arise  out  of,  the  narrative  portion,  that  it  is  difficult  to  separate 
them.  The  idea  of  a  Christian  in  that  age  making  discourses  for 
Christ,  especially  different  in  style  from  what  is  contained  in  the 
other  Gospels,  is  absurd.  It  is  well  known  that  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels  adhere  closely  to  the  history  of  Christ  as  contained  in  our 
Gospels,  and  rarely  attribute  any  saying  to  him  not  found  in  them. 
Neander  truly  remarks  on  this  Gospel:  "It  could  have  emanated 
Estimates  of  ^rom  none  other  than  that  *  beloved  disciple  '  upon  whose 


Neander,  cred-  soul  the  image  of  the  Saviour  had  left  its  deepest  im 
press.  So  far  from  this  Gospel  having  been  written  by 
a  man  of  the  second  century  (as  some  assert),  we  cannot  even  imag 
ine  a  man  existing  in  that  century  so  little  affected  by  the  contra 
rieties  of  his  times  and  so  far  exalted  above  them.  Could  an  age  in 
volved  in  perpetual  contradictions,  an  age  of  religious  materialism, 
anthropomorphism,  and  one-sided  intellectualism,  have  given  birth 
to  a  production  like  this,  which  bears  the  stamp  of  none  of  these  de 
formities  ?  How  mighty  must  the  man  have  been  who,  in  that  age, 
could  produce  from  his  own  mind  such  an  image  of  Christ  as  this  ? 
And  this  man,  too,  in  a  period  almost  destitute  of  eminent  minds, 
remained  in  total  obscurity  !  Was  it  necessary  for  the  master-spirit, 
who  felt  in  himself  the  capacity  and  the  calling  to  accomplish  the 
greatest  achievement  of  his  day,  to  resort  to  a  pitiful  trick  to  smug- 
gle  his  ideas  into  circulation  ?  " 

Credner,  a  distinguished  German  Rationalist,  truthfully  and  beau- 
credner's  tes-  ^u^y  savs  respecting  this  Gospel  :  "  If  we  had  been  left 
tiraony  to  the  without  any  historical  testimonies  respecting  the  author 
Goapeiof  John.  of  ^  fourth  Gospel,  who  is  not  named  in  the  writing 

1  Life  of  Christ,  translated  by  M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal,  pp.  6,  7. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  623 

itself,  yet  from  internal  grounds  lying  in  the  Gospel  itself — from  the 
nature  of  the  language  ;  from  the  freshness  and  vividness  of  the  nar 
rative  ;  from  the  accuracy  and  definiteness  of  its  statements;  from 
the  peculiar  manner  in  which  the  Baptist  and  the  sons  of  Zebedee  are 
mentioned ;  from  the  enthusiastic  love  and  fervour  which  the  writer 
shows  toward  Jesus;  from  the  irresistible  charm  which  is  diffused 
over  the  whole  Gospel  history  written  upon  a  definite  plan  ;  from  the 
philosophical  reflections  with  which  he  begins  the  Gospel — we  would 
be  led  to  the  result  that  the  author  of  such  a  Gospel  can  be  a  Pales 
tinian  only,  can  be  an  immediate  eyewitness  only,  can  be  an  apostle 
only,  can  only  be  a  favourite  of  Jesus,  can  be  that  John  only  whom 
Jesus  held  captive  by  the  entire  heavenly  charm  of  his  doctrine."  ' 

It  is  pleasant  to  see  that  great  Orientalist  and  biblical  scholar, 
Ewald,  with  his  strong  tendencies  to  free-thinking,  whose  criticism 
on  the  Old  Testament  is  often  so  destructive,  defending  the  gepuine- 
ness  and  the  historical  character  of  this  Gospel  with  so  much  confi 
dence  and  earnestness.  "  That  the  Apostle  John,"  says  he,  "  is  really 
the  author  of  this  writing,  and  that  no  other  can  have  composed  it 
than  that  one  to  whom  it  has  ever  been  attributed,  can  neither  be 
doubted  nor  denied;  rather,  from  every  direction  to  which  we  may 
look,  every  ground,  every  indication,  and  every  mark,  conspire  to 
forbid  any  such  doubt  (of  its  genuineness)  ever  seriously  arising."8 

In  concluding  this  part  of  our  subject,  we  may  remark  that  the 
combined  evidence,  external  and  internal,  in  favour  of  the  genuine 
ness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  well  nigh  overwhelming.  It  bears  upon 
its  very  face  the  impress  of  truth  and  of  its  apostolic  origin,  and  has 
ever  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  great  bulwarks  of  Christianity.  It 
has  commanded  the  admiration  of  the  profoundest  men  in  all  ages 
of  the  Church,  whose  theology  it  has  contributed  so  much  to  mould. 

THE   TIME   AND   PLACE   OF   ITS   COMPOSITION. 

The  position  of  this  Gospel  in  all  the  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  and 
in  the  early  Peshito-Syriac  version,  shows  that  it  was  writ-  Jolm,g  Gogpel 
ten  after  the  other  three,  as  no  other  reason  can  be  as-  written  after 
signed  for  its  standing  in  the  fourth  place,  and  this  con-  theotherthree- 
elusion  is  confirmed  by  the  testimonies  of  the  second  century.8 

It  would  also  appear  that  it  was  written  after  the  other  Gospels, 
from  the  fact  that  it  supplements  them.  But  as  the  Gospels  of  Mark 
and  Luke  were  written  a  short  time  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 

'Einleitung  in  Das  Neue  Testament.     Erster  Theil,  p.  208.     Halle,  1836. 
"Die  Johannischen  Schriften,  p.  43.     Gottingen,  1861. 

'Tertullian,  however,  places  John  immediately  after  Matthew,  doubtless  becatue 
he  was  an  apostl-i.  in  which  he  follows  the  old  Latin  version. 


624  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

salem,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  this  Gospel  was  writ- 
ten  after  that  event. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Gospel  itself  to  fix  its  date.  The  state* 
ment,  "  There  is  (eariv)  at  Jerusalem  ...  a  pool  .  .  .  having  five 
porches  "  (chap,  v,  2),  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  Jerusalem  was 
still  standing,  for  the  pool  itself  is  not  likely  to  have  been  destroyed 
with  the  city,  though  the  porches  were  in  all  probability.  John,  in 
deed,  speaks  of  the  pool  and  porches  as  he  knew  them,  and  it  is  not 
at  all  likely  that  he  visited  the  city  after  its  destruction.  Nor  do 
the  passages:  "  Bethany  was  nigh  unto  Jerusalem  "  (chap,  xi,  18), 
and  "  Where  was  a  garden  " '  (chap,  xviii,  i),  imply  thai  these  places 
no  longer  existed.  In  fact,  they  were  not  destroyed  with  Jerusalem 
as  far  as  we  know.  The  language  indicates  simply  the  state  of  things 
contemporaneous  with  the  events  without  reference  to  the  present. 

It  is  clear  thrft  John  wrote  his  Gospel  after  he  had  left  Palestine ; 
for  he  speaks  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews  in  such  a  way  as  no  one 
would  likely  do  who  was  living  there  at  the  time  of  writing  ;  "  There 
was  a  feast  of  the  Jews  "  (chap,  v,  i) ;  "  The  passover,  a  feast  of  the 
Jews  "  (chap,  vi,  4) ;  "  After  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews  " 
(chap,  ii,  6)  ;  also  the  statement  about  the  pool  and  its  porches 
(ch.  v.  2),  and  the  distance  of  Bethany  from  Jerusalem  (ch.  xi,  18). 
But  it  is  impossible  to  determine  how  long  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  this  Gospel  was  written.  John,  according  to  Irenaeus — a 
valuable  witness  on  this  point — lived  till  about  A.  D.  98,  and  we  may 
suppose  that  he  wrote  the  Gospel  about  A.  D.  80,  when  he  still  en 
joyed  a  vigorous  life. 

CONTENTS. 

This  Gospel  opens  with  an  introduction  on  the  dignity  of  the  per- 
synopsis  of  the  son  °^  Christ,  followed  by  the  testimony  of  John  the 
contents  of  Baptist,  and  various  particulars  respecting  the  way  in 
,ospei.  whick  several  of  Christ's  disciples  became  acquainted 
with  him  (chap.  i).  Then  follow  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana  of  Gal 
ilee,  and  the  conversion  of  water  into  wine ;  Christ's  visit  to  Jerusa 
lem,  and  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus  (chaps,  ii,  iii).  His  in 
terview  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  at  Jacob's  well,  and  his  return  to 
Galilee,  and  his  healing  of  the  nobleman's  son  (chap.  iv).  He  goes 
up  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  heals  a  sick  man  on  the  Sabbath,  which 
cure  gives  rise  to  a  controversy  between  him  and  the  Jews  (chap.  v). 
He  crosses  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  feeds  five  thousand  men  with  a 
few  loaves  and  fishes,  and  holds  a  discussion  with  the  Jews  on  his 

1  The  garden  still  remains :  it  must,  however,  have  been  greatly  injured  in 
destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  G25 

being  the  bread  of  life  (chap.  vi).  Christ  goes  up  to  Jeiusalem  at 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  where  he  disputes  with  the  Jews  (chaps, 
vii,  viii).  Then  come  an  account  of  Christ  healing  a  man  blind 
from  his  birth  (chap,  ix) ;  the  parable  of  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep, 
and  his  disputation  with  the  Jews  (chap,  x)  ;  the  death  and  the  res 
urrection  of  Lazarus,  and  the  effect  upon  the  Jews  (chap,  xi)  ;  the 
anointing  of  Christ  by  Mary  at  Bethany;  his  triumphant  entrance 
into  Jerusalem.  He  hints  at  his  death,  and  utters  various  moral 
and  divine  truths  (chap.  xii).  While  at  supper,  he  washes  his  dis 
ciples'  feet,  to  teach  them  humility,  and  predicts  that  one  of  them 
shall  betray  him,  indicating  by  a  sign  to  John  that  it  is  Judas,  who  im 
mediately  leaves  (chap,  xiii,  1-30).  Christ  utters  his  last  discourses 
with  his  disciples  (chaps,  xiii,  3i-xvii).  We  next  have  his  arrest  in 
the  garden,  and  trial  before  Annas,  Caiaphas,  and  Pilate;  he  is  con 
demned  to  death  ;  a  description  of  the  crucifixion  (chaps,  xviii,  xix)  ; 
his  resurrection  and  appearance  to  his  disciples  (chap.  xx).  He  after 
ward  appears  to  them  at  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  enjoins  upon  Peter  to  feed 
his  lambs  and  sheep,' and  predicts  that  apostle's  death  (chap.  xxi). 
It  is  thus  seen  that  comparatively  few  of  Christ's  miracles  are  re 
corded.  No  account  is  given  of  his  cleansing  the  lepers,  or  casting 
out  devils.  On  the  other  hand,  John  alone  records  Christ's  raising 
of  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  which  was  a  most  important  event  in 
Christ's  life,  the  culmination  of  his  miracles.  It  brought  on  the 
crisis  which  led  to  his  crucifixion.  Its  absence  from  the  other  Gos 
pels  is  to  be  explained  by  their  omission  of  Christ's  ministry  at  Jeru 
salem  at  the  time. 

Although  John  wrote,  it  would  seem,  to  supplement  the  other  Gos 
pels,  he  had  at  the  same  time  a  higher  object ;  and  while  stating  that 
Christ  performed  many  other  works,  he  remarks :  "  But  these  are 
written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God  ;  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name  "  (ch. 
xx,  31). 

INTEGRITY    OF   JOHN'S    GOSPEL. 

This  Gospel  seems  appropriately  to  conclude  with  the  last  quoted 
words.  Hence  a  very  large  number  of  critics,  including  Oplnlong  re_ 
Neander,  De  Wette,  Liicke,  and  Bleek,  regard  chap,  xxi  specting  chap, 
as  added  by  a  later  hand.  Neander  remarks  :  "  The  ac-  t 
count  in  this  chapter  (xxi)  was  in  all  probability  received  from  John's 
own  lips,  and  written  down  after  his  death  by  one  of  his  disciples."1 
Ewald  thinks  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  ending  with  chapter  xx. 
about  A.  D.  80,  and  in  this  condition  it  remained  ten  years  or  more. 
As  the  report  had  already  spread  that  Jesus  had  told  John  he  should 

'Life  of  Christ,  p.  434.     M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal's  Translation. 
VOL.  I.— 40 


G26  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

not  die,  the  apostle  was  anxious  before  he  died  to  correct  the  error, 
and  his  friends  accordingly  assisted  him  in  adding  chapter  xxi  as  an 
appendix  to  the  Gospel  which  had  not  yet  been  put  into  circulation. 
In  this  chapter  the  error  was  corrected.  Ewald  thinks  it  very  closely 
resembles  in  style  the  preceding  twenty  chapters.1  Hengstenberg 
believes  that  chapter  xxi  was  written  by  John,  while  Olshausen, 
Tholuck,  Godet,  and  others  attribute  to  John  the  whole  chapter  with 
the  exception  of  the  last  two  verses  (24,  25)  ;  and  this  seems  to 
be  the  correct  view.  Chapter  xxi,  24  states :  "  This  is  the  disciple 
which  testifieth  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things,"  etc.  It  is 
difficult  to  see  how  it  could  be  said  that  "  this  disciple  wrote  these 
things,"  when  they  had  been  written  by  another  hand. 

The  particulars  given  in  this  chapter  forbid  the  supposition  that 
it  could  have  been  written  by  any  one  but  an  eyewitness  (chap.  xxi). 
It  is  found  in  all  the  ancient  manuscripts  and  in  all  the  ancient  ver 
sions  of  this  Gospel,  which  is  a  conclusive  proof  that  it  was  originally 
published  in  this  form.  Had  the  addition  been  made  after  the  Gospel 
had  been  put  into  circulation,  chapter  xxi  would  have  been  wanting 
in  some  ancient  manuscripts  and  versions.  The  last  two  verses. 
however,  were  probably  added  by  the  Ephesian  Church  as  a  testi- 
mony  to  the  Gospel  before  it  was  published. 

It  is  very  probable  that  John  intended  to  close  his  Gospel  with 
the  end  of  the  twentieth  chapter;  but  before  publishing  it,  he  con 
cluded  to  add  the  last  chapter  to  correct  the  inference  that  had  been 
drawn  from  a  remark  of  Christ  to  him,  that  he  should  never  die.  In 
like  manner,  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  finds  a  suitable  close  with 
chapter  xv,  the  next  chapter  being  an  appendix. 

The  section  (chaps,  vii,  53-viii,  u)  containing  an  account  of  the 
Theammntof  woman  taken  in  adultery  formed  no  part  of  the  original 
the  woman  ta-  Gospel  of  John.  It  is  wanting  in  the  oldest  two  Codices, 
tery  wanting  the  Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus,  and  also  in  the  Alexan- 
in  some  Mss.  drian;2  jn  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  as  well  as  the  Mem- 
phitic,3  Theban,  Gothic,  and  Armenian,4  and  in  Latin  MSS.  of  the 
fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  centuries.  It  was  unknown  to  Origen,  who, 
in  commenting  on  John,  connects  chap,  vii,  52  with  chap,  viii,  12. 
It  appears  to  have  been  unknown  also  to  Tertullian.6  The  critical 
editors,  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  omit  the  section  in  their  editions 
of  the  New  Testament.  In  fact,  the  connexion  is  broken  by  this 
section.  Nevertheless,  the  incidents  related  in  it  appear  to  be  real, 

1  Die  Johan.  Schriften,  pp.  54-57.  'It  is  first  found  in  Codex  Bezae 

•  In  Memphitic  MSS.  of  Wilkins.  Schwartze  remarks,  "  This  narrative  is  want 
ing  in  the  Memphitic  and  Sahidic  versions. 

4  Edition  of  Zohrab.  •  De  Pudicitia,  cap.  vi. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  627 

and  the  conduct  attributed  to  Christ  bears  the  stamp  of  his  charac 
ter.  The  source  of  the  narrative  is  uncertain.  Eusebius  remarks 
that  Papias,  in  his  work,  gave  an  account  of  a  woman  who  was  ac 
cused  before  the  Lord  of  many  sins,  which  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  contains.1  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  was  origi 
nally  the  same  incident  that  is  now  contained  in  the  section  under 
discussion. 

The  account  of  an  angel  troubling  the  pool  (ch.  v,  3,  4),  beginning 
with  the  words,  "Waiting  for  the  moving  of  the  water,"  Angel  troubling 
is  not  found  in  Codices  Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus,  and  the  pool  (chap. 
in  some  other  very  ancient  MSS. ;  in  most  of  the  MSS.  v'8'4)* 
of  the  Memphitic  a  and  Sahidic  versions,  and  in  some  very  ancient 
Syriac  fragments  of  the  Gospels  published  by  Cureton ;  and  the  sec 
tion  is  accordingly  omitted  by  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  who  have 
the  following  text :  "  There  is  in  Jerusalem  at  the  sheep  (gate)  a 
pool  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  Bethesda,1  having  five  porches.  In 
these  were  lying  a  multitude  of  sick,  blind,  lame,  withered.  There 
was  a  certain  man  there  who  had  been  sick  thirty-eight  years.  Jesus 
seeing  him  lying,"  etc.  The  additional  words  found  in  manuscripts 
and  versions,  including  the  English,  were  in  all  probability  written 
upon  the  margin  of  some  manuscripts  at  a  very  early  period  as  an 
explanation  of  the  healing  properties  of  the  pool.  The  text  is  far 
better  without  this  addition.  With  the  exception  of  the  two  sections 
named,  and  xxi,  24,  25,  we  have  the  Gospel  as  originally  delivered 
by  John. 


I 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

APOCRYPHAL    GOSPELS. 

N  the  ancient  Christian  Church,  from  the  last  part  of  the  second 
century,  there  are  occasional  references  to  uncanonical  Gos 
pels,  generally  called  Apocryphal,  containing  matters  pertaining 
to  the  evangelical  history.  From  the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  however, 
we  must  exclude  the  Syro-Chaldee  Gospel  used  by  the  Nazarenes, 
very  often  called  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  since,  as  Je 
rome  testifies,  this  was  nearly  the  same  as  our  Matthew,  probably 
a  mere  revision  of  it.  From  this  was  derived  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 

1  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xxxix.  Reference  is  also  made  to  this  narrative  in 
Constitutiones  Apost.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxiv,  written  near  the  end  of  the  third  century. 

"  Schwartze,  in  his  edition  of  the  four  Gospels,  in  the  Memphitic  dialect,  says  this 
passage  is  wanting  in  the  Memphitic  and  Sahidic  versions.  "Tischendor 


628  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

which  is  mentioned  by  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch,  as  being  used  in 
the  Church  at  Rhossus,  in  Cilicia,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
He  says  that  the  most  of  its  contents  were  in  accordance  with  the 
true  doctrines,  but  some  things  in  it  were  of  a  different  character.1 

The  Protevangel  of  James,  professing  to  be  written  by  him,  con- 
The  Protevan-  tains  a  description  of  the  grief  of  Joachim  and  Anna  on 
gel  of  James.  account  of  their  being  childless,  and  the  subsequent  birth 
of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  her  early  life,  her  deliverance  for  sife 
keeping  to  Joseph,  the  birth  of  Christ  in  a  cave  in  the  region  of 
Bethlehem,  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  and  the  star  that  appeared  at  his 
birth,  Herod's  command  to  slaughter  the  infants,  and  its  execution, 
Elizabeth  with  John  (the  Baptist)  escapes  to  a  mountain,  while 
Zachariah,  the  father  of  John,  refusing  to  give  Herod  any  informa 
tion  respecting  him,  is  slain  by  Herod's  servants.  The  narrative  is 
decked  off  with  miraculous  legends.  The  Greek  text,  in  which  it 
was  originally  written,  has  been  published  by  Tischendorf.9 

There  is  no  proof  that  Justin  Martyr  had  any  acquaintance  with 
this  Protevangel.  For  the  reference  which  he  makes  to  Christ  hav 
ing  been  born  in  a  cave  in  the  suburbs  of  Bethlehem  8  was  in  all 
probability  derived  from  tradition,  as  Samaria  was  his  native  place 
Nor  does  the  Protevangel  say  that  Christ  was  born  in  the  suburbs  of 
Bethlehem,  though  it  mentions  the  cave. 

It  seems  probable  that  Clement 4  of  Alexandria  was  acquainted 
with  it,  as  he  gives  one  of  its  statements  respecting  Mary,  with  the 
remark,  "  some  say,"  yet  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  he  refers  to  this 
work.  Origen  also  refers  to  it,6  and  Epiphanius  8  has  a  passage  from 
it.  to  which  he  prefixes  the  remark :  "  For  if  both  the  history  of 
Mary  and  traditions  say  that  it  was  announced,"  etc.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa7  says:  "I  have  heard  of  a  certain  apocryphal  history,"  etc., 
in  which  he  refers  to  the  narrative  concerning  Mary,  found  partly  at 
least  in  this  Protevangel.  These  seem  to  be  about  all  the  references 
made  to  it  in  the  first  four  centuries.  It  never  had  any  authority  in 
the  Church.  It  appears  to  have  been  written  about  the  middle  or 
near  the  end  of  the  second  century,  and  is  undoubtedly  a  spurious 
production. 

'In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  12,  Origen  also  refers  to  this  Gospel  in 
Comment,  in  Matt.,  torn,  x,  sec.  17. 

8  In  the  Evangelia  Apocrypha,  pp.  1-50,  republished  since  Tischendorf  s  death 
Leipzig,  1876.  'Dialogus  cum  Tryphone,  78. 

•Stromata,  vii,  cap.  xvi.  6  Comment,  in  Matt.,  torn,  x,  17, 

*  Haeresis  Ixxix,  sec.  v.  7  Oratio  in  Diem  Natal.  Christi. 


OF    THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  C20 


THE    GOSPEL    ACCORDING    TO    THE    EGYPTIANS. 

This  Gospel  is  first  mentioned  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the 
last  part  of  the  second  century.  He  refers  to  some  sayings  of  Christ, 
and  remarks :  "  I  think  they  are  found  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Egyptians.  For  they  say  that  the  Saviour  himself  said,"  *  etc. 
after  which  he  gives  some  expressions  not  found  in  our  Gospels.  In 
another  place,  quoting  a  passage  that  the  heretic,  Cassianus,  attrib 
utes  to  Christ,  he  remarks :  4<  In  the  first  place  we  have  not  this  ex 
pression  in  the  four  Gospels  delivered  to  us,  but  in  that  which  is  ac 
cording  to  the  Egyptians."5  It  is  also  mentioned  by  Origen  as  a 
Gospel  rejected  by  the  Church.3  It  was  mystical,  and  in  all  prob 
ability  composed  in  Egypt  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
or  perhaps  as  early  as  A.  D.  125.  It  never  had  any  authority  in  the 
Church. 

Among  other  Apocryphal  Gospels  may  be  named  that  of  Thomas 
in  Greek  and  Latin,  treating  of  the  early  history  of  Christ  and  the 
flight  into  Egypt.  It  was  written  very  probably  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  The  Gospel  of  Pseudo-Matthew  in  Latin, 
containing  matters  pertaining  to  Mary,  her  parents,  and  the  child 
hood  of  Jesus.  It  was  not  written  till  several  centuries  after  Christ. 
The  Gospel  concerning  the  Nativity  of  Mary  in  Latin,  of  uncertain 
age.  The  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  not  written  until  several  cen 
turies  after  Christ.  The  History  of  Joseph  the  Carpenter  in  Latin, 
translated  from  the  Arabic,  written  several  centuries  after  Christ.  The 
Acts  of  Pilate  in  Greek  (Part  I),  which  gives  an  account  of  the  pro 
ceedings  before  Pilate  respecting  Christ,  and  is  a  vindication  of  the 
Saviour's  character.  The  book  was  probably  written  in  the  fourth 
century.  The  Acts  of  Pilate  (Part  II)  in  Greek,  treating  of  Christ's 
sufferings  and  resurrection.  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  (Part  II),  or 
The  Descent  of  Christ  into  Hades.  This  is  a  continuance  of  the 
two  preceding  books,  and  was  probably  written  in  the  fourth  or  fifth 
century.  To  these  we  may  add :  The  Epistle  (in  Latin)  of  Pontius 
Pilate  to  the  Emperor  Tiberias,  respecting  Christ.  The  Report  of 
Pontius  Pilate  concerning  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  sent  to  Augustus 
Caesar  in  Rome  (written  in  Greek).  The  Report  of  Pontius  Pilate, 
tne  Governor  of  Judea,  sent  to  Tiberias  Caesar  in  Rome.  The  Pun 
ishment  of  Pilate  (in  Greek).  The  Death  of  Pilate,  who  condemned 
Jesus,  The  Narrative  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  The  Vindication 
of  the  Saviour.4 

It  must  be  observed  that  these  "  Apocryphal  Gospels  "  abound  in 

'Stromata,  lib.  iii,  cap.  ix.  *Ibid.,  cap.  xiii.  'Homilia  i,  in  Lucam. 

4  All  the  foregoing  have  been  published  by  Tischendorf. 


630  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 

the  most  glaring  errors,  absurdities,  and  ridiculous  legends,  and  are 
not  to  be  named  with  our  four  Gospels.  Bleek  truly  says  respecting 
them :  "  No  single  one  of  these  writings  has  any  historical  value. 
So  far  as  they  do  not  agree  with  the  contents  of  the  canonical  writ 
ings,  they  are  not  derived  from  historical  tradition,  but  are — at  least 
generally — arbitrary  inventions,  the  unhistorical  character  of  which 
strikes  us  at  once,  partly  representing  the  Redeemer  in  a  manner 
distorted,  and  entirely  unworthy  of  him;  but  they  exhibit  very 
clearly  to  us  the  value  and  the  historical  character  of  our  canonical 
Gospels." ' 

Great  liberties  have  been  taken  with  the  MSS.  of  these  Apocryphal 
Gospels,  and  the  texts  differ  widely  in  many  instances,  and  this  shows 
that  but  little  importance  was  attached  to  them. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES. 

WE  have  already  seen  *  that  Luke  is  the  author  of  the  Acts,  as 
well  as  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name,  and  that  to  him  both 
works  were  assigned  by  the  unanimous  judgment  of  antiquity.  We 
have  also  seen  that  there  are  peculiarities  of  language  pervading  the 
whole,  which  establish  the  unity  of  the  entire  Book  of  Acts,  and  show 
it  to  be  the  work  of  one  author. 

The  book  may  be  appropriately  divided  into  two  sections.  The 
first^  embracing  chapters  i-xii,  contains  an  account  of  the  selection 
of  Matthias  to  take  the  place  of  Judas,  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  their  ministry,  es 
pecially  that  of  Peter  and  John,  in  Jerusalem  (chaps,  i-v)  ;  the  selec 
tion  of  seven  deacons,  the  arrest  of  Stephen,  his  Address  to  the  San 
hedrim,  and  his  martyrdom  (chaps,  vi,  vii) ;  the  ministry  of  Philip, 
Peter,  and  John  in  Samaria,  the  conversion  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch 
(chap,  viii)  ;  the  miraculous  conversion  of  Saul  while  on  his  way  to 
Damascus,  his  preaching  in  that  city  and  escape  from  it,  his  visit  to 
Jerusalem  and  Tarsus,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Church  (chap,  ix, 
1-31) ;  Peter's  ministry  at  Lydda  and  Joppa;  his  preaching  the  Gos 
pel  at  Cesarea  to  Cornelius  the  centurion,  who  is  the  first  convert 
from  the  Gentiles.  Peter,  on  returning  to  Jerusalem,  is  blamed  by 
those  of  the  circumcision  for  eating  with  the  uncircumcised.  He 
defends  himself  by  relating  his  vision  at  Joppa  and  the  circumstances 
*Einleitung,  pp.  381,  382.  *In  discussing  Luke's  Gospel. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  631 

nf  Cornelius's  conversion  (chaps,  ix,  32-xi,  18);  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  by  believers  dispersed  from  Jerusalem,  to  Jews  only,  as 
far  as  Phenice,  Cyprus,  and  Antioch ;  the  bringing  of  Saul  from 
Tarsus  to  Antioch  by  Barnabas ;  the  sending  of  relief  by  the  disciples 
in  Antioch  to  the  brethren  in  Judea  during  the  famine ;  the  martyr- 
dom  of  the  Apostle  James  by  Herod,  the  imprisonment  of  Peter,  his 
release  by  an  angel,  and  the  miserable  death  of  Herod  (chapters 
xi,  ig-xii). 

The  second  section,  embracing  chapters  xiii-xxviii,  is  chiefly  occu 
pied  with  the  ministry  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  This  apostle  and  Bar 
nabas,  being  sent  forth  from  Antioch,  preach  the  gospel  in  Cyprus, 
where  Sergius  Paulus,  the  proconsul  of  the  country,  is  converted. 
After  this  they  preach  the  Gospel  in  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  Iconium, 
Lystra,  Derbe,  and  Perga,  and  return  to  Antioch  (chaps,  xiii,  xiv). 
The  question,  Whether  the  Gentile  Christians  are  bound  to  keep  the 
law  of  Moses,  is  discussed  by  the  apostles  and  brethren  in  Jerusa 
lem,  and  decided  in  the  negative  (chap,  xv,  1-35).  Paul  and  Silas 
visit  the  Churches  in  Syria  and  Cilicia.  Paul  visits  Derbe  and  Lys 
tra  ;  at  the  latter  place  he  finds  Timothy,  whom  he  takes  with  him 
on  a  missionary  tour  through  Phrygia  and  Galatia,  and  arrives  at 
Troas,  from  whence  Paul  sets  out  for  Macedonia,  and  preaches  in 
Philippi,  passes  through  Amphipolis  and  Apollonia,  and  proclaims  the 
gospel  in  Thessalonica  and  Berea.  He  leaves  Macedonia  for  Athens, 
and  preaches  at  the  Areopagus  in  that  city  (chaps,  xv,  36-xvii.) 
Paul  visits  Corinth.  Incidents  of  his  ministry  in  that  city  (ch.  xviii.) 
Paul's  ministry  in  Ephesus  and  the  uproar  made  there  by  the  makers 
of  silver  shrines  for  Diana  (chap.  xix).  He  passes  over  into  Mace 
donia,  visits  Greece,  returns  through  Macedonia,  and  sails  away 
from  Philippi,  and  lands  at  Troas,  where  he  preaches.  On  his  way 
to  Jerusalem  Paul  visits  Miletus,  where  he  addresses  the  elders  con 
vened  from  Ephesus.  Sailing  from  Ephesus,  he  touches  at  Tyre, 
and  afterward  sails  to  Cesarea,  from  whence  he  goes  up  to  Jerusa 
lem  and  visits  James,  who  advises  him  respecting  conformity  to  the 
law  of  Moses  (chaps,  xx-xxi,  25).  Chapters  xxi,  26-xxvi  give  a  de 
tailed  account  of  the  persecutions  of  Paul  by  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem, 
his  addresses  to  them,  his  imprisonment  in  Cesarea,  his  address  to 
Agrippa  and  Festus,  and  his  appeal  to  Caesar  to  get  rid  of  his  Jewish 
enemies.  In  the  two  following  chapters  (xxvii,  xxviii)  there  is  a  de 
scription  of  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome,  his  shipwreck,  but  safe  arrival 
in  the  city,  and  his  preaching  there. 


633  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 


THE   SOURCES   OF   THIS    HISTORY. 

Luke  possessed  ample  opportunity  to  become  intimately  ac- 
quainted  with  the  history  he  relates.  We  have  already  seen  that  as 
a  companion  of  Paul  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Acts,  he  describes 
what  he  saw  and  heard.  He  spent  about  two  years  in  Jerusalem 
with  Paul,1  became  acquainted  with  James  a  and  the  elders  in  Jerusa 
lem,  many  of  whom  were  eyewitnesses  of  what  occurred  in  the  ear 
liest  stage  of  the  progress  of  Christianity.  His  long  intimacy  with 
the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  enabled  him  to  ascertain  Paul's  whole 
history  as  a  persecutor  of  the  Church,  and  as  its  zealous  defender. 
Under  these  circumstances,  written  sources  were  not  necessary.  It 
is  quite  certain,  however,  that  the  Epistle  addressed  by  the  apostles 
and  the  rest  of  the  Christians  in  Jerusalem  to  the  Gentile  Christians 
(chap,  xv,  23-29)  has  been  incorporated  substantially  in  its  original 
form. 

THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   THE    HISTORY   IN   THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  one  of  the  most  authentic  books  in  ex 
Paiey's    Hone  istence.     It  everywhere  shows  that  its  author  possesses 
Paulinas.  t^e  mos|;  exact  knowledge  respecting  the  affairs  of  the 

Greeks  and  Romans,  the  early  Christian  Church,  and  the  geography 
of  the  extensive  region  over  which  Paul  traveled.  A  remarkable 
confirmation  of  its  history  is  furnished  by  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 

In  the  last  part  of  the  last  century  Dr.  Paley  published  his  cele 
brated  work,  Horae  Paulinas,  or  The  Truth  of  the  Scripture  History 
of  St.  Paul  Evinced.  On  this  subject  he  remarks  in  his  evidences 
of  Christianity :  "  Between  the  letters  which  bear  the  name  of  St. 
Paul  in  our  collection,  and  his  history  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
there  exist  many  notes  of  correspondence.  The  simple  perusal  of 
the  writings  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  neither  the  history  was  taken 
from  the  letters,  nor  the  letters  from  the  history ;  and  the  undesign- 
edness  of  the  agreements  (which  undesignedness  is  gathered  from 
their  latency,  their  minuteness,  their  obliquity,  the  suitableness  of 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  consist  to  the  places  in  which  those 
circumstances  occur,  and  the  circuitous  references  by  which  they 
are  traced  out)  demonstrates  that  they  have  not  been  produced  by 
meditation,  or  by  any  fraudulent  contrivance.  But  coincidences, 
from  which  these  causes  are  excluded,  and  which  are  too  close  and 
numerous  to  be  accounted  for  by  accidental  concurrences  of  fiction. 

'Acts  xxi,  17;  xxiv,  27;  xxvii,  I,  etc. 

1  Chapter  xxi,  18.  Luke  came  to  Jerusalem  with  Paul  about  twenty-seven  yean 
after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  633 

must  necessarily  have  truth  for  their  foundation."  Paley's  work,  re 
ferred  to  above,  shows  these  undesigned  coincidences  between  the 
Acts  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul  in  a  most  masterly  manner,  proving 
the  truth  of  Paul's  history  with  a  force  almost  equal  to  a  mathemat 
ical  demonstration.  Yet  the  impugners  of  the  Acts,  found  chiefly 
in  the  Tubingen  school,  so  far  as  we  know,  take  no  notice  of  Paley's 
work.  This  perhaps  may  be  explained  by  a  remark  of  Bunsen  (him 
self  a  German)  :  "  Modern  criticism  has  been  left  to  the  Germans, 
for  whom  reality  has  no  charm." '  "What  they  know  how  to  handle 
best  is  thought,  the  ideal  part  of  history  ;  what  is  farthest  from  their 
grasp  is  reality."  ' 

Baur,  the  head  of  the  Tubingen  school  of  extreme  rationalists,  re 
gards  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  "  not  as  a  purely  historical  Baur,s  estl_ 
writing,  but  only  a  representation  following  a  definite  mate  of  the 
tendency,"  the  peculiar  object  of  which  was  the  solution 
of  the  question,  In  what  relation  did  the  Apostle  Paul  stand  to  the 
older  apostles?  He  thinks  that  the  original  doctrine  of  Paul  is 
found  in  the  Acts  only  in  a  modified  form,  that  is,  it  yields  too  much 
to  the  Jewish  Christians.  Speaking  of  Paul,  Baur  remarks  :  "  When 
we  compare  the  description  which  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  gives  of 
his  character  and  deportment,  with  the  picture  with  which  his  per- 
sonalit}  presents  itself  to  us  in  his  own  writings,  nothing  is  more 
striking  than  the  great  contrast  in  which  the  Paul  of  the  Acts  stands 
toward  the  Paul  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  And  as  he,  according  to 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  made  concessions  to  the  Jewish  Christians, 
which  he,  according  to  the  principles  proclaimed  by  himself  in  the 
most  decided  manner,  cannot  possibly  have  made,  so,  on  the  opposite 
side,  the  Acts  present  Peter  in  a  light  in  which  we  can  no  longer 
recognize  him  as  one  of  the  chief  representatives  of  Jerusalem  Jewish 
Christianity."9  That  is,  manifestly,  Peter  is  not  Jewish  enough. 

Baur's  theory  rests  upon  the  assumption  that  there  was  an  irrecon 
cilable  difference  between  the  doctrines  of  Paul  and  Baur's  theory 
Peter  respecting  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  JJ[  ^tLe^cts 
the  nature  of  Christ — that  early  Christianity  was  of  an  examined. 
Ebionitish  cast.  If  we  are  to  believe  Baur,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
was  written  to  bring  into  harmony  the  Churches  founded  by  Peter 
and  those  founded  by  Paul.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  his  theory  requires 
that  the  Acts  should  have  been  written  a  considerable  length  of  time 

1  In  speaking  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions. 

1  Hippolytus  and  his  Age.     Both  of  these  passages  I  have  taken  from  Tregelles' 
Canon  of  Muratori,  pp.  66,  67 

8Die  Drei  Ersten  Jahrhunderte,  pp.  126,  1.27,  Dritte  Ausgabe.     Tubingen,  1863 


Ca4  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

after  the  death  of  these  apostles.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  probable 
that  the  Acts  were  written  in  their  lifetime. 

But  Baur  can  be  completely  refuted  from  those  very  Epistles  of 
Paul  that  he  acknowledges,  viz.,  Romans,  i  and  2  Corinthians,  and 
Galatians. 

What,  then,  is  the  testimony  of  Paul  respecting  the  relations  ex- 


Reproof  of  Pe-  between  himself  and  Peter  ?     "  When  they  saw  that 

terbypauiex-  the  gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was  committed  unto 
me,  as  the  gospel  of  the  circumcision  was  unto  Peter 
(for  he  that  wrought  effectually  in  Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the 
circumcision,  the  same  was  mighty  in  me  toward  the  Gentiles)  ;  and 
when  James,  Cephas  [Peter],  and  John,  who  seemed  to  be  pillars, 
perceived  the  grace  that  was  given  unto  me,  they  gave  to  me  and 
Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship  ;  that  we  should  go  unto  the 
heathen,  and  they  unto  the  circumcision."  (Gal.  ii,  7-9).  Do  we 
see  here  any  indication  of  hostility  between  Peter  and  Paul,  or  any 
manifestation  of  a  difference  of  doctrine  ?  It  is  true,  he  afterward 
states  that  Peter  was  to  be  blamed  because,  before  certain  persons 
had  come  from  James,  "he  did  eat  with  the  Gentiles:  but  when 
they  were  come,  he  withdrew  and  separated  himself,  fearing  them 
which  were  of  the  circumcision.  ...  I  said  unto  Peter  before  them 
all,  If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  compellest  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do 
the  Jews?"  (chap,  ii,  12,  14).  It  appears  evident  from  this  that 
Peter  did  associate  with  the  Gentiles,  and  did  not  feel  himself  under 
obligation  to  observe  the  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law.  But  in  the  present 
instance,  through  fear,  he  did  not  adhere  firmly  to  his  principles. 
Now,  as  far  as  Peter  is  concerned,  we  find  nothing  in  the  Acts 
inconsistent  with  what  is  here  stated  respecting  him.  We  find 
in  Acts  x,  xi,  1-18,  that  he  goes  to  the  heathen,  Cornelius,  and 
preaches  the  Gospel  to  him  and  his  household.  But  does  Paul  mean 
to  say  that  Peter  was  accustomed  to  enjoin  upon  the  Gentiles  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law?  That  is  impossible  under  the  cir 
cumstances.  For  it  is  inconceivable  that  Peter  should  think  that 
he,  himself  a  Jew,  was  free  from  the  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  that 
the  Gentiles  were  subject  to  them  !  All  that  can  be  intended  by 
Paul  is  that  Peter,  through  fear,  did  not  carry  out  his  principles;  and 
that  the  example  he  was  setting  by  his  timidity  made  the  impression 
that  it  was  necessary  for  the  Gentiles  to  live  in  accordance  with  the 
Mosaic  law  in  order  to  be  in  full  fellowship  with  the  Jewish  Chris 
tian  Church.  Hence  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  what  Paul 
here  states  of  Peter,  and  what  the  latter  himself  says  in  Acts  xv,  10 
respecting  the  enjoining  of  the  law  of  Moses  upon  the  converts  from 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  6C5 

among  the  Gentiles  :  "  Now  therefore  why  tempt  ye  God.  to  put  a 
yoke  upon  the  necks  of  the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor 
we  were  able  to  bear?  "  We  hear  nothing  of  any  dispute  between 
Peter  and  Paul  afterward.  Peter's  "  error,"  says  Olshausen,  "  was 
a  purely  personal  one,  by  which  his  official  character  as  an  apostle 
is  not  in  the  least  compromised."  '  Nowhere  in  the  Acts  is  there 
any  thing  inconsistent  with  what  is  otherwise  known  of  Peter,  or  that 
is  at  variance  with  his  apostolical  character. 

Respecting  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  assertion  of  Baur  is  utterly  false, 
that  his  Epistles  present  him  in  a  different  light  from  his  Paul  the  same 
conduct  as  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  In  Gal.  ii,  3  ^e^Actl^nd 
he  says  :  "  But  neither  Titus,  who  was  with  me,  being  a  the  Epistles. 
Greek,  was  compelled  to  be  circumcised."  The  inference  to  be 
drawn  from  this  is,  that  if  he  had  been  a  Jew  it  might  have  been 
necessary  to  circumcise  him.  When,  therefore,  we  are  informed  in 
the  Acts  (xvi,  1-3)  that  Paul  took  Timothy,  whose  mother  was  a 
Jewess,  and  his  father  a  Greek,  and  circumcised  him  on  account  of 
the  Jews,  there  is  no  violation  of  the  principles  announced  by  Paul 
respecting  circumcision. 

When  Paul,  on  the  completion  of  this  missionary  tour,  returned  to 
Jerusalem,  he  found  a  report  among  the  Jews  that  he  taught  all  of 
their  nation  who  were  "among  the  Gentiles  to  forsake  Moses,  saying 
that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children,  neither  to  walk  after 
the  customs."  Therefore,  on  the  advice  of  James  and  the  elders,  he 
took  four  men  who  had  a  vow  upon  them,  and  purified  himself  along 
with  them,  being  "at  charges  with  them."  Is  there  anything  in  his 
Epistles  inconsistent  with  this  conduct  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  not 
the  language  which  he  uses  indicative  of  just  such  a  course  of  con 
duct  ?  "  And  unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain 
the  Jews ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  that  I 
might  gain  them  that  are  under  the  law"  (i  Cor.  ix,  20).  "I  am 
made  all  things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  by  all  means  save  some  " 
(i  Cor.  ix,  22). 

Paul,  it  is  true,  in  writing  to  the  Galatians.  says :  "  If  ye  be  circum 
cised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man 
that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  Christ 
Is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by 
the  law;  ye  are  fallen  from  grace  "  (Gal.  v,  2-4).  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  Paul  charges  the  Galatians  with  departing  from  the 
great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  and  with  seeking  salvation 
through  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law.  If  they  therefore  relied 
upor>  circumcision  for  salvation,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  was  uselesi 
Comment,  on  Galatians. 


636  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

to  them.  But  the  practice  of  circumcision,  without  attributing  to  it 
any  efficacy,  could  not  in  the  least  degree  impede  their  salvation, 
and  Paul  was  ready  to  accede  to  its  performance  in  obedience  to 
custom,  when  no  importance  was  attached  to  it  by  the  person  cir 
cumcised.  Paul  also  tells  them  that  in  seeking  salvation  through 
circumcision  it  was  necessary  also  to  keep  the  whole  law,  of  which 
circumcision  is  but  a  part.  Just  as  a  man  baptized  into  the  Chris 
tian  faith  takes  upon  him  the  observance  of  all  the  precepts  of 
Christ.  In  Acts  xviii,  18,  mention  is  made  of  Paul  having  shorn  his 
head  in  Cenchrea,  as  he  had  a  vow.  This  was  in  obedience  to  the 
Mosaic  law. 

The  passage  concerning  the  circumcision  of  Timothy  (Acts  xvi, 
1-3),  to  which  we  have  already  referred,  the  passage  on  the  purifica 
tion  of  Paul  in  the  temple  (chap,  xxi,  24,  26),  already  noticed,  and  the 
vow  and  shaving  of  Paul's  head,  are  the  only  passages  in  the  Acts 
in  which  his  conduct  in  respect  to  the  Mosaic  law  is  at  all  shown. 

Peter  preaches  the  Gospel  to  the  Jews,  and  first  opens  to  the 
improbability  of  Gentiles  the  door  of  admission  into  Christianity,  and  op- 
Baur'c  theory.  pOses  the  putting  of  the  yoke  of  the  law  upon  the  necks 
of  Gentile  converts.  In  the  council,  however,  in  which  Peter  speaks, 
the  decision  is  given  by  James.  The  views  of  Peter  and  Paul  are 
never  brought  together.  They  hold  no  discussion  concerning  the 
obligations  of  the  Mosaic  law.  We  cannot  tell  from  the  Acts  whether 
either  Peter  or  Paul  favoured  the  circumcision  of  Jewish  Christians 
In  the  twenty-eight  chapters  of  this  book  we  have  only  two  or  three 
incidental  passages  which  give  us  any  information  at  all  respecting 
Paul's  relation  to  the  law,  and  but  one  from  Peter  respecting  the  re 
lation  of  the  Gentile  Christians  to  it ;  and  that,  too,  in  a  book  written, 
according  to  Baur,  for  the  express  purpose  of  showing  how  Paul 
stood  toward  the  older  apostles,  and  to  reconcile  the  two  great  par 
ties,  Pauline  and  Petrine,  in  the  Church !  Wonderful,  indeed,  that 
the  Chiistian  Church  for  nearly  eighteen  centuries  could  not  dis 
cover  this  fact  in  the  plain  narrative  of  Luke  !  It  required  the  trans 
cendent  genius  of  Baur  to  make  this  brilliant  discovery,  and  even 
after  it  is  made  it  requires  a  peculiar  kind  of  genius  to  see  it.  Alto 
gether  different  in  this  respect  from  other  discoveries,  which  strike 
us  at  once  with  so  much  force  that  we  are  surprised  that  we  had 
never  thought  of  them  ourselves. 

Even  if  two  or  three  passages  had  been  found  in  the  Acts  in  which 
a  dogmatic  interest  is  discernible,  the  credibility  of  the  great  body 
of  the  history  would  be  scarcely  affected  by  the  fact.  But  no  such 
passages  are  found,  and  everywhere  in  the  history  we  see  truth  ami 
candour,  and  are  deeply  impressed  with  the  reality  of  this  wonderful 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  637 

narrative  of  the  founding  of  Christianity  by  the  apostles  after  the 
resurrection  and  ascension  of  their  Divine  Master. 

We  have  already  observed  that  the  conduct  of  Paul  toward  the 
Jews  in  the  Acts  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  his  own  other  coinci- 
declaration  :  "  Unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  dences- 
might  gain  the  Jews  "  (i  Cor.  ix,  20).  He  adds  :  "  To  them  without 
law  ....  as  without  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  without 
law  "  (i  Cor.  ix.  21).  With  this  compare  his  conduct  at  the  Areop 
agus  of  Athens,  where  he  begins  his  discourse  with  heathenism,  and 
advances  by  a  beautiful  gradation  to  the  great  principles  of  Chris 
tianity  (Acts  xvii,  16-34).  His  whole  discussion  at  the  Areopagus, 
and  his  remarks  to  the  heathen  at  Lystra,  are  in  entire  accordance 
with  the  sentiments  which  he  utters  respecting  the  heathen,  in  Rom. 
i,  19,  20. 

The  great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  which  Paul  sets  forth  in 
his  Epistles,  the  Acts  also  represent  him  as  teaching  (chaps,  xiii,  39 ; 
xvi,  31;  xxvi,  18).  We  have  already  remarked  that  the  author  of 
the  Acts  shows  a  most  exact  knowledge  of  Jewish,  Greek,  and  Roman 
affairs.  In  the  Acts  the  Sadducees  appear  as  the  chief  opponents  of 
the  apostles,  since  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was  especially 
obnoxious  to  that  sect  of  the  Jews.  In  the  Gospels,  however,  where 
the  resurrection  is  not  so  clearly  preached,  the  Pharisees  are  the 
chief  adversaries  of  Christ,  because  he  exposed  their  hypocrisy. 

The  character  Luke  attributes  to  the  Athenians,  "For  all  the 
Athenians,  and  strangers  who  were  there  [in  Athens],  spent  Historical 
their  time  in  nothing  else,  but  either  to  tell  or  to  hear  curacyofLuke 
some  new  thing"  (chap,  xvii,  21),  is  confirmed  by  De 
mosthenes,  who  represents  them  as  going  about  inquiring:  "  Is  there 
any  thing  new  ?  "  In  chap,  v,  37  it  is  stated  that  Judas  of  Galilee 
rose  in  the  days  of  the  taxing,  and  drew  many  people  after  him,  and 
that  he  perished,  and  his  followers  were  dispersed.  This  man  is 
also  mentioned  by  Josephus  as  Judas  the  Gaulanite,  who  resisted  the 
payment  of  taxes  to  the  Romans  in  the  time8  that  Cyrenius  was 
governor  of  Syria.  In  chapter  xi,  28,  29  it  is  stated  that  a  prophet 
named  Agabus  predicted  that  there  would  "be  great  dearth  (At/to^, 
famins)  throughout  all  the  world:  which  come  to  pass  in  the  days 
of  Claudius  Caesar.  Then  the  disciples,  every  man  according  to  his 
ability,  determined  to  send  relief  unto  the  brethren  which  dwelt  in 
Judea."  Josephus,  in  speaking  of  events  which  occurred  about  the 
sixth  or  seventh  year  of  Claudius  Caesar  (about  A.  D.  46),  says  :  "  It 
happened  that  the  great  famine  occurred  throughout  Judea,  during 
which  Queen  Helene  purchased  corn  at  great  expense  from  Egypt, 
1  Philippic  i,  IO.  *  Antiq.,  xviii.  cap.  i,  I. 


638  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

and  distributed  it  among  the  needy,  as  I  before  said."  '  In  chapter 
xii,  1-3  it  is  stated  that  Herod  the  king  killed  James  the  brother  of 
John  with  the  sword,  and  imprisoned  Peter  also,  with  the  intention 
of  killing  him,  since  he  saw  that  the  murder  of  James  pleased  the 
Jews.  About  A.  D.  37  Herod  obtained  the  provinces,  Abilene, 
Batansea,  Trachonitis,  and  Auranitis.  Claudius  added  Judea  and 
Samaria.  These  possessions  he  held  for  about  three  years,  until  his 
death.8  In  chapter  xii,  21-23  it  is  stated  that  in  Caesarea,  "upon  a 
set  day,  Herod,  arrayed  in  royal  apparel,  sat  upon  his  throne,  and 
made  an  oration  unto  them.  And  the  people  gave  a  shout,  saying, 
It  is  the  voice  of  a  god,  and  not  of  a  man.  And  immediately  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  smote  him,  because  he  gave  not  God  the  glory : 
and  he  was  eaten  of  worms,  and  gave  up  the  ghost."  Josephus'  de 
scription  is  very  similar.  He  states  that  Herod  was  celebrating 
games  in  honour  of  Claudius  Caesar  in  Caesarea,  and  that  on  the 
second  day  of  the  festival,  early  in  the  morning,  clad  in  a  robe  made 
entirely  of  silver,  of  wonderful  workmanship,  he  went  into  the  thea 
ter,  and  the  first  rays  of  the  sun  reflected  from  the  silver  dazzled 
fearfully  the  beholders.  Immediately  the  flatterers  cried  out  from  dif 
ferent  sides,  calling  him  a  god,  adding :  "  Be  thou  gracious  unto  us, 
even  if  up  to  the  present  time  we  have  feared  thee  as  a  man,  yet  for 
the  future  we  acknowledge  that  thou  art  superior  to  a  mortal  nature." 
The  king  did  not  rebuke  them,  nt>r  did  he  refuse  the  impious  flat 
tery.  A  little  after  this,  looking  up,  he  observed  an  owl  sitting  on  a 
cord  above  his  head.  He  immediately  perceived  that  this  was  a 
messenger  of  evil,  and  he  was  seized  with  heart-piercing  pain.  Im 
mediately  the  pain  in  the  bowels  that  began  with  violence  continued 
to  increase.  Looking  at  his  friends,  he  says  :  "  I,  your  god,  am  now 
summoned  to  die,  my  fate  immediately  refuting  the  false  language 
in  which  you  just  now  addressed  me,"  etc.  After  five  days  he  died 
of  this  pain  in  the  abdomen.8 

Luke  is  here  confirmed  by  Josephus  in  very  remarkable  manner 
in  all  essential  points,  and  his  exact  knowledge  is  shown  in  the  fact 
that  Herod  was  king  over  Judea  but  three  years,  a  reign  that  might 
have  been  easily  misplaced. 

In  chap,  xiii,  7  it  is  stated  that  Sergius  Paulus  was  proconsul  of  the 
other  conflr-  island  of  Cyprus.  Here  is  another  instance  of  Luke's 
mation  of  the  accuracy ;  for  in  the  distribution  of  the  Roman  prov- 
ASr^of01  Se  inces  as  made  by  Augustus,  Cyprus  was  retained  by  the 
Apostles.  emperor,  and  the  governor  of  that  province  was  a  pro- 

1  Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  v,  2,  and  xx,  cap.  ii,  5. 

'Josephus  states  that  Herod  died  in  the  third  year  of  his  reign  over  all  Judea 
(A.  D.  44).  Antiq.,  xix,  cap.  viii,  sec.  2  'Ibid- 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  639 

praetor.  But  Augustus  afterward  took  Dalmatia  from  the  Senate, 
and  gave  to  it  Cyprus l  and  Gallia  Narbonensis.  Cyprus,  then,  as 
belonging  to  the  Senate,"  was  governed  by  a  proconsul  (dvtfi'Trarof), 
as  stated  by  Luke.  And  on  a  coin 3  struck  in  the  time  of  Claudius 
Caesar,  the  governor  of  the  island  of  Cyprus  is  called  avi9v7raroc,  the 
very  word  used  by  Luke.  In  chapter  xvi,  14  mention  is  made  of 
"Lydia,  a.  seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira."  "The  dyeing 
trade  had  flourished  from  a  very  early  period,  as  we  learn  from 
Homer,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Thyatira,  and  is  permanently  com 
memorated  in  inscriptions  which  relate  to  the  '  guild  of  dyers '  in 
that  city,  and  incidentally  give  a  singular  confirmation  of  the  verac 
ity  of  St.  Luke  in  his  casual  allusions."4  In  chap,  xvi,  12  it  is  said 
that  "  Philippi  (is)  the  first  city  of  this  part  of  Macedonia,  a  colony." 
Augustus  "presented  it  with  the  privileges  of  a  '  Colonia,'  with  the 
name  'Col.  Jul.  Aug.  Philip.  "  In  chap,  xvi,  16  mention  is  made 
of  a  place  of  prayer  (7Tpoaev%rj,  oratory)  on  the  river  side.  By  the 
decree  of  the  city  of  Halicarnassus  the  Jews  were  authorized  "to 
build  proseuchcz  (oratories)  on  the  sea-shore,  according  to  the  cus 
tom  of  their  fathers." '  The  locating  of  these  oratories  near  the 
water  was  for  the  purpose  of  ablution. 

In  chapter  xvi,  27  the  keeper  of  the  Philippian  prison  is  about  to 
commit  suicide  under  the  impression  that  the  prisoners  had  fled. 
"  By  the  Roman  law  the  jailer  was  to  undergo  the  same  punishment 
which  the  malefactors  who  had  escaped  by  his  negligence  were  to  have 
suffered." 7  In  verse  35  it  is  stated  :  "  The  magistrates  sent  the  ser 
geants;  "  but  the  latter  word  in  the  original  is  f>a(33ovxot,  lictors-, 
well  known  Roman  officers.  The  same  word  is  also  used  in  verse  38, 
but  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament. 

In  chap.  xvii.  23  St.  Paul  speaks  of  an  altar  at  Athens  with  the  in 
scription  :  "  To  THE  UNKNOWN  GOD."  Pausanias,  who  wrote  his 
Description  of  Greece  in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century,  in  speak 
ing  of  temples  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Piraeeus,  the  chief  harbour  of 
Athens,  remarks :  "  There  are  altars  both  of  the  gods  that  are  named 
and  those  that  are  unknown."  '  The  word  in  Luke  and  in  Pausanias 
is  the  same,  <Jyvowrro^,  {unknown).  Paul  says,  "  As  I  was  passing 
through  and  beholding  the  objects  of  your  worship,  I  found  an  altar 
with  this  inscription,"  etc.  That  is,  As  I  was  coming  up  from  the 
Piraeeus,  and  passing  through  the  midst  of  your  altars  and  temples, 
I  found  an  altar  dedicated  to  the  UNKNOWN  GOD.  It  is  not  neces- 

1  Dion  Cassius,  lib.  liii,  12.  '  Strabo,  lib.  xvii,  c.  840. 

"Sec  this  inscription  in  Conybeare  and  Howson's  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 
4  Conybeare  and  Howson.  *  Smith's  Geographical  Dictionary,  Art,  PhilippL 

"  Antiq.,  lib.  xiv,  cap.  x,  23,          T  Conybeare  and  Howson.        *  Lib.  i,  cap  i.  4. 


640  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

sary  to  suppose  that  there  was  but  one  such  altar,  for  it  did  not  suit 
the  purpose  of  Paul  to  allude  to  more  tnan  one.  In  chap,  xviii,  a 
it  is  remarked,  that  when  Paul  came  to  Corinth,  he  "  found  a  certain 
Jew  named  Aquila,  born  in  Pontus,  lately  come  from  Italy,  with  his 
wife  Priscilla,  because  that  Claudius  had  commanded  all  Jews  to 
depart  from  Rome."  This  banishment  of  the  Jews  from  Rome  is 
confirmed  by  Suetonius,  who,  in  speaking  of  Claudius,  says:  "He 
banished  from  Rome  the  Jews,  who,  with  Chrestus  (Christ)  their 
leader,  were  constantly  creating  disturbances." 

In  chap,  xvii,  12  it  is  said  that  "  when  Gallic  was  the  deputy  (dv&v, 
rraror,  proconsul}  of  Achaia,  the  Jews  made  insurrection  with  one 
accord  against  Paul,  and  brought  him  to  the  judgment  seat."  The 
statement  of  Luke  that  this  officer  was  a. proconsul  is  confirmed  by 
Strabo  and  Dion  Cassius.  Achaia,  embracing  the  Peloponnesus, 
and  Southern  Greece  as  far  as  Thessaly,  is  the  seventh  in  the 
list  of  provinces  governed  by  proconsuls,  according  to  the  former.9 
And  Dion  Cassius  *  remarks  that  Hellas  (Achaia)  belonged  to  the 
people  and  the  Senate,  and  was,  of  course,  governed  by  a  proconsul. 
That  the  proconsul  should  have  resided  in  Corinth  was  quite  natural, 
as  it  was  both  a  splendid  city  and  nearly  in  the  centre  of  the  province. 
The  proconsul  Gallic,  here  mentioned,  was  probably  a  brother  of 
the  philosopher  Seneca,  who,  in  Epistle  104,  speaks  of  Gallic  having 
had  a  fever  in  Achaia.  In  chap,  xxi,  39  Paul  declares  that  he  is  "  a 
Jew  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  a  citizen  of  no  mean  city."  This  was  no 
idle  boast  of  the  apostle,  for  Strabo  remarks :  "  So  much  zeal  is  dis 
played  by  the  men  of  this  place  (Tarsus)  in  the  study  of  philosophy 
and  the  whole  remaining  circle  of  learning,  that  they  have  surpassed 
both  Athens  and  Alexandria,  and  every  other  place  that  can  be 
named,  in  which  schools  and  vocations  of  philosophers  have  ex 
isted."  *  Antony  rewarded  it  for  its  attachment  to  Caesar  "with  mu 
nicipal  freedom  and  exemption  from  taxes.  .  .  .  Augustus  subse 
quently  increased  the  favours  previously  bestowed  upon  Tarsus, 
which  on  coins  is  called  a  '  libera  civitas  ' '  6  (a  free  city).  We  have 
no  proof,  however,  that  this  highly  favoured  city  was  endowed  with 
Roman  citizenship.  Paul's  father,  or  some  other  ancestor,  must  have 
obtained  the  privilege,  which  enabled  him  to  declare  that  he  wa 
born  in  the  possession  of  it. 

In    chap,    xxi,  38  the  chief  captain  asks  Paul :  "  Art  thou  that 
Egyptian,  which  before  these  days  madest  an  uproar,  and  leddes* 

1  Claudius,  cap.  xxv.  "Lib.  xvii,  840. 

"Lib.  liii,  12.     Also  Tacitus  speaks  of  Achaia  and  Macedonia  being  governed  \f 
a  proconsul.     Annal.,  lib.  i,  cap.  76. 

*  Lib.  xiv,  673.  *  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Classical  Geography. 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  641 

out  into  the  wilderness  four  thousand  men  that  were  murderers?" 
Josephus,  in  speaking  of  deceivers  and  robbers  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  administration  of  Felix,  says :  "  At  this  time  a  man  came  from 
Egypt  to  Jerusalem  professing  to  be  a  prophet,  advising  the  multi 
tude  to  go  to  the  Mount  of  Olives."  Josephus  further  states  that  he 
declared  that  at  his  command  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  would  fall 
down,  by  which  they  would  enter  the  city,  and  that  Felix  with  his 
troops  attacked  the  Egyptian  and  his  party,  killed  four  hundred,  and 
took  two  hundred  alive.1  In  his  Jewish  Wars3  he  represents  this 
Egyptian  false  prophet,  as  he  calls  him,  leading  around  from  the 
desert  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  thirty  thousand  men.  This  number 
seems  to  be  an  exaggeration  or  a  corruption  of  the  original  text.  The 
general  statements  are  in  remarkable  harmony  with  Luke. 

In  the  last  part  of  the  Acts  we  find  Ananias,  high  priest  of  the 
Jews  (chaps,  xxiii,  2;  xxiv,  i).  According  to  Josephus,  still  other  con- 
he  was  the  son  of  Nebedaeus,  and  seems  to  have  been  JS?*!^ 
made  high  priest  about  A.  D,  48,"  and  we  find  him  still  racy, 
living  about  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war,4  so  it  is  certain  that 
he  was  high  priest  when  Paul  was  on  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem  (about 
A.  D.  60-62). 

At  this  visit  we  also  find  that  Felix  is  the  governor,  which  state 
ment  accords  with  what  is  related  in  Josephus.  He  appears  to  have 
been  sent  from  Rome  as  governor  of  Judsea,  Samaria,  Galilee,  and 
Petrsea,  about  A.  D.  51.  He  was  succeeded  by  Porcius  Festus  * 
(A.  D.  62),  who  is  mentioned  in  Acts  (xxiv,  27;  xxv,  i,  4,  etc.). 
Luke  states  that  the  wife  of  Felix  was  Drusilla,  a  Jewess.  Josephua 
confirms  this,  and  gives  several  particulars  concerning  her.8 

It  is  stated  that  as  Paul  "reasoned  of  righteousness,  temperance, 
and  judgment  to  come,  Felix  trembled  "  (chap,  xxiv,  25).  The  life 
of  this  man  shows  that  there  were  special  reasons  for  trembling,  as 
Drusilla,  with  whom  he  was  living  as  his  wife,  had  been  induced  by 
him  to  leave  her  former  husband.  Tacitus  speaks  of  him  as  noted 
for  all  kinds  of  cruelty  and  lust.7  We  find  also  in  the  last  part  of 
this  book  mention  made  of  King  Agrippa  (chaps,  xxv,  i3~xxvi). 
This  Agrippa  was  the  son  of  the  Herod  whose  death  is  related  in 
Acts  xii,  21-23.  He  is  mentioned  in  various  places  by  Josephus, 
and  in  connexion  with  Festus,  and  is  called  king  by  him.  Josephus 
states  that  he  built  for  himself  a  splendid  house  in  Jerusalem.' 
In  company  with  Agrippa,  Bernice  is  mentioned  (Acts  xxv,  13; 

1  Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  viii,  6.         '  Lib.  ii,  cap.  xiii,  5.  •  Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  v,  2. 

«*  Lib.  ii,  cap.  xvii,  6.  *  Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  viii,  9.       *Ibid.,  xx,  cap.  vii,  i,  a. 

*  Antonius  Felix,  per  omnem  saevitiam  ac  libidinem,  jus  regium  servili  ingenioex. 
crcuit. — Hist,  lib.  v,  9.  •  Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  viii.  n. 

VOL.  I.— 41 


C42  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

xxvi,  30).  This  Bernice  was  a  sister  of  King  Agrippa,  and  also  at 
a  later  period  visited  Jerusalem.1  After  Paul  had  been  shipwrecked 
at  Melita  (Malta),  he  left  in  a  ship  of  Alexandria  and  landed  in 
Italy  at  Puteoli  (Acts  xxviii,  n,  13).  Puteoli  was  the  great  port 
of  trade  with  Alexandria  in  Egypt.8  Here,  too,  Luke's  knowledge 
is  exact. 

Of  all  the  numerous  statements  of  Luke  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  there 
Apparent  mis-  is  only  one  that  can  be  charged  with  inaccuracy — the 
loathe'  ^cta  remarks  °f  Gamaliel  in  the  Sanhedrim  respecting  Theu- 
considered.  das  :  "  For  before  these  days  rose  up  Theudas,  boasting 
himself  to  be  somebody ;  to  whom  a  number  of  men,  about  four 
hundred,  joined  themselves:  who  was  slain;  and  all,  as  many  as 
obeyed  him,  were  dispersed"  (chap,  v,  36).  Josephus  mentions  a 
Theudas,  a  magician,  who  persuaded  the  greatest  multitude  to  take 
up  their  possessions  and  follow  him  to  the  river  Jordan.  "  For  he 
said  that  he  was  a  prophet,  and  that  he  would  divide  the  river  by 
his  command,  and  give  them  an  easy  passage  through  it.  By  saying 
these  things  he  deceived  many."  He  also  states  that  the  procurator 
"  sent  a  squad  of  horsemen  after  them,  which,  falling  upon  them  un 
expectedly,  slaughtered  many  of  them,  and  captured  many  alive. 
They  take  Theudas  himself  alive,  cut  off  his  head,  and  bring  it  to 
Jerusalem."'  This  occuried  while  Fadus  was  procurator  of  Judea, 
about  A.  D.  45,  so  that  it  is  not  possible  that  Gamaliel,  about  A.  D. 
33,  can  have  referred  to  this  man.  The  only  way  in  which  Luke 
can  be  charged  with  error  is  to  suppose  that  he  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Gamaliel  this  statement,  forgetting  at  the  time  that  Theudas  lived 
about  twelve  years  later.  But  this  is  inadmissible,  especially  as 
Gamaliel  says:  "After  this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Galilee  in  the 
days  of  the  taxing,  and  drew  away  much  people,"  etc.  This  oc 
curred  A.  D.  6-8,  and  is  recorded,  as  we  have  already  seen,  by  Jose 
phus.  How  was  it  possible  for  Luke  to  make  such  a  mistake  as  to 
place  Theudas  forty  years  or  more  too  early  ?  The  Theudas  of  Jo 
sephus  played  his  part  about  fifteen,  years  before  Luke,  with  Paul, 
visited  Jerusalem,  and  his  acts  must  have  been  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
all.  It  is  not  at  all  strange  that  Josephus  should  omit  the  Theudas 
mentioned  by  Gamaliel,  as  he  had  only  four  hundred  followers, 
who  dispersed  after  he  was  slain.  But  the  Theudas  of  Josephs 
was  a  far  more  important  character.  Respecting  the  Theudas  of  the 
Acts,  Dr.  Robinson  remarks :  "  He  is  probably  to  be  placed  during 
the  interregnum  immediately  after  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great, 
when  Judea  was  disturbed  by  frequent  seditions.  See  Josephus, 

'Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  vii,  3  ;  and  Wars,  ii,  cap.  xv,  I. 

*  Strabo,  lib.  xvii,  793.     He  calls  the  town  Dicsearchia.         'Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  v»  !• 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  643 

Antiq.,  xvii,  x,  2-10.  .  .  .  Some  hold  Theudas  to  have  been,  under 
another  name,  either  the  Judas  or  the  Simon  of  Josephus,  (Antiq., 
xvii,  x,  5,  6)."  '  Paley  observes  :  "  It  is  proved  from  Josephus  that 
there  were  not  fewer  than  four  persons  of  the  name  of  Simon  within 
forty  years,  and  not  fewer  than  three  of  the  name  of  Judas  within 
ten  years,  who  were  all  leaders  of  insurrections."  ! 

Upon  the  whole,  it  is  far  more  probable  that  there  were  two  lead 
ers  of  insurrections  by  the  name  of  Theudas,  than  that  Luke  should 
have  made  a  mistake  in  this  matter,  as  we  have  seen  that  he  every 
where  shows  such  accurate  historical  knowledge.  Nor  does  Luke, 
in  fact,  need  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  which  we  have  seen  in  such 
a  striking  manner  confirms  his  statements.  The  fairness,  candour, 
and  accuracy  of  Luke  appear  on  every  page  of  the  Acts.  As  it  is, 
however,  Luke  and  Josephus  strongly  corroborate  each  other. 

The  statement  respecting  Stephen,  that  immediately  after  his  speech 
before  the  Sanhedrim  he  was  assaulted,  cast  out  of  the  city,  and  stoned 
to  death,  without  any  vote  of  condemnation  by  the  Sanhedrim,  or  any 
sentence  from  the  governor,  who  alone  had  the  power  to  inflict  the 
death  penalty,  has  been  thought  to  create  a  difficulty.  But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  that  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  committed 
the  murder,  though  they  doubtless  connived  at  it.  In  fact,  however, 
the  killing  of  Stephen  was  a  great  deal  like  a  case  of  lynching  in  our 
country,  when  an  enraged  mob,  thinking  that  the  process  of  law  is 
too  slow,  and  the  punishment  of  the  criminal  too  uncertain,  inflict 
summary  punishment  themselves. 

Equally  accurate  are  the  geography  and  topography  of  Luke.  He 
knows  the  distance  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  from  Jerusalem — a  Sab 
bath  day's  journey  (chap,  i,  12).  He  is  acquainted  with  the  Beauti 
ful  gate  of  the  Temple  (chap,  iii,  10)  ;  knows  there  is  a  street  in  Da 
mascus  called  Straight 8  (chap,  ix,  1 1)  ;  is  familiar  with  the  Areopagus 
at  Athens  (chap,  xvii,  19—34),  and  is  acquainted  even  with  Appii 
Forum  and  the  Three  Taverns  (chap,  xxviii,  15).  But  we  have 
touched  upon  a  few  points  only,  for  the  whole  book  teems  with  ac 
curate  geographical  and  topographical  knowledge,  and  indicates  that 
its  author  must  have  been  a  careful  and  extensive  traveler. 

When  we  add  to  the  foregoing  proofs  of  credibility,  the  evidence 
furnished  by  numerous  passages  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  many  of 
them  undesigned  coincidences,  the  resulting  evidence  in  proof  of 
the  historical  truth  of  the  Acts  is  overwhelming.  And  this  same 

1  Greek  Lex.  of  New  Testament :  Theudas.  *  Evidences  of  Christianity. 

'We  traversed  the  whole  length  of  this  street,  which  extends  more  than  a  mile 
from  wall  to  wall  through  the  old  city  of  Damascus,  of  which  it  is  the  only  straight 
street. 


644  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

well  informed,  careful,  and  conscientious  historian  wrote  also  the 
third  Gospel,  in  which  he  informs  us  that  he  "  had  perfect  under- 
standing  of  all  things  from  the  very  first "  (chap,  i,  3). 

Chrysostom,  bishop  of  Constantinople  about  A.  D.  400,  makes  a 
me  strange  re-  strange  remark  in  the  beginning  of  his  Commentary  on 
mark  of  chry-  the  Acts,  written  in  that  city :  "  To  many  both  this  book 
and  its  author  are  unknown."  He  means,  probably,  many 
in  Constantinople  and  at  that  time ;  yet,  even  with  this  limitation,  the 
statement  is  doubtless  an  exaggeration.  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons, 
A.  D.  177-202,  makes  great  use  of  the  Acts,  especially  in  his  third 
book  against  Heresies.  In  one  instance  he  quotes  it  nine  times  on 
a  single  .page.  It  was  also  used  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the 
last  part  of  the  second  century,  and  about  the  same  time  by  Ter- 
tullian  at  Carthage.  It  appears,  also,  to  have  been  used  by  Polycarp 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.1  In  the  subsequent  centuries  it 
was  used  everywhere  in  the  Christian  world  as  an  undoubted  au 
thority.  It  is  true,  it  was  not  so  much  quoted  as  the  Gospels  which 
contain  the  teachings  of  Christ  himself. 

The  five  books  containing  the  history  of  Christ  and  his  apostles 
are  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  with  the  acknowledg 
ment  of  their  genuineness  the  truth  of  Christianity  necessarily  fol 
lows.  The  Epistles  of  the  apostles  establish  the  same  historical  facts 
respecting  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  set  forth  the  great  doctrines 
of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  as  developed  and  explained  by  his 
chosen  messengers. 


T 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL. 
THE   PERSON   OF   THE   APOSTLE. 

HIS  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  who  wrote  at  least  thirteen 
Epistles  of  the  New  Testament  Canon,  and  who  in  natural 
ability  and  culture  was  superior  to  all  the  other  apostles,  was  born 
at  Tarsus  (Acts  xxii,  3),  the  most  important  city  of  Cilicia,*  highly 

1  "  Having  loosed  the  pains  [udZvof]  of  death  "  (Actsii,  24).  "  Having  loosed  the 
pains  [wtKvof]  of  Hades." — Sec.  I.  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  alludes  to  it. 

•Jerome  says  (Com.  in  Philem.)  that  he  had  heard  the  story  (fabulant,  fable)  that 
the  parents  of  the  Apostle  Paul  were  of  the  region  of  Giscalis  in  Judea  [in  Northern 
Palestine],  and  when  the  whole  province  was  destroyed  by  the  Romans,  and  the 
Jews  were  scattered  over  the  world,  they  went  to  Tarsus  accompanied  by  Paul,  who 
was  then  a  young  man.  This  story  is  manifestly  false,  as  it  contradicts  the  apost.le 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  645 

distinguished  for  its  intellectual  culture,  and  for  the  freedom  and 
privileges  that  had  been  conferred  upon  it  by  Mark  Antony  and 
Augustus  Caesar. 

Paul  himself  tells  us  that  he  was  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  circum 
cised  the  eighth  day,  and  of  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees  Paul's  personal 
(Philippians  iii,  5).  It  does  not  appear  by  what  means  b18101^' 
his  father,  or  some  other  ancestor,  obtained  the  rights  of  Roman 
citizenship,  in  the  possession  of  which  the  apostle  was  born  (Acts 
xxii,  28).  He  acquired  in  his  youth  the  art  of  tent-making,  by  which 
we  find  him  supporting  himself  while  at  Corinth  (Acts  xviii,  3). 

The  Jews  regarded  it  of  high  importance  that  every  boy  should 
learn  some  trade ;  hence  the  proverb  among  them :  "  Whoever 
teaches  his  son  no  trade,  teaches  him  to  steal."  He  received  his 
training  in  Jerusalem,  having  been  instructed  by  Gamaliel,  a  cele 
brated  rabbi  (Acts  xxii,  3),  grandson  of  the  famous  Hillel.  It  is 
uncertain  how  old  he  was  when  put  under  the  instructions  of  Ga 
maliel.  It  is  said  that  Jewish  boys  commenced  the  study  of  the 
law  when  twelve  years  of  age.  But  we  cannot  determine  whether 
Paul  was  so  young  when  sent  from  Tarsus  to  Jerusalem  to  pursue 
the  study  of  the  law  under  Gamaliel.  Nor  do  we  know  when  he 
finished  his  rabbinical  education. 

The  apostle  was  well  acquainted  with  Syro-Chaldee,  the  vernacu 
lar  language  of  Palestine,  as  we  find  him  addressing  a  Attalnments  ot 
crowd  at  Jerusalem  in  this  tongue,  called  Hebrew  (Acts  Fauiinknowi- 
xxii,  2).  He  was  proficient  in  Greek,  for  he  addressed  edff°* 
at  the  Areopagus  the  Athenians  there  assembled.  The  Hebrew  of 
the  Old  Testament  he  doubtless  studied  with  Gamaliel  in  connexion 
with  the  study  of  the  law.  It  is  impossible  to  state  with  any  cer 
tainty  the  extent  of  his  Greek  culture,  though  it  probably  was  con 
siderable.  At  the  Areopagus  he  quotes  the  Greek  poet  Aratus  (Acts 
xvii,  28).  In  i  Corinthians  xv,  33,  is  a  quotation  from  Menander, 
and  in  Titus  i,  12  he  gives  a  quotation  from  Epimenides  of  Gnossus 
in  Crete.  It  is  not  improbable  that  Paul  was  in  Jerusalem  during 
some  part  of  Christ's  ministry  there,  and  that  he  saw  the  Redeemer. 
This  seems  to  be  indicated  in  2  Corinthians  v,  16  :  "Though  we 
have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we  him 
no  more." 

We  first  meet  with  him,  under  the  name  of  Saul,  in  the  account  of 
the  stoning  of  Stephen,  where  he  is  called  a  young  man  at  whose 

himself  (Acts  xxii,  3),  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  facts  of  history,  as  Giscala  did  not 
surrender  to  the  Romans  until  a  short  time  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
which  was  A.  D.  70.  In  De  Viris  Illustribus  he  states  that  he  was  of  Giscalis,  as  if 
he  did  not  regard  it  as  a  fable. 


646  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

feet  the  witnesses  laid  down  their  clothes.  Immediately  after  this  he 
Paul's  conver-  appears  as  a  bitter  persecutor  of  the  Church,  and  sets  out 
Aon'  for  Damascus  with  letters  from  the  high  priest  to  the 

synagogues  in  Damascus  authorizing  him  to  bind  and  bring  from 
that  city  to  Jerusalem  the  followers  of  Christ  (Acts  ix,  i,  2).  When 
he  draws  near  to  Damascus  Christ  appears  to  him,  strikes  him  to  the 
earth  blind,  remonstrates  with  him,  and  commissions  him  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  Jews  and  Gentiles.  After  three  days'  blindness,  he 
receives  sight  when  Ananias  lays  hands  on  him,  after  which  he  is 
Daptized,  and  preaches  Christ  in  the  synagogues  at  Damascus  (Acts 
ix,  3-20;  xxii,  4-16;  xxvi,  10-20;  Gal.  i,  12-16,  etc.).  The  Jews 
lying  in  wait  to  kill  him,  he  escapes  and  goes  into  Arabia,  and  re 
turns  to  Damascus.  Three  years  after  his  conversion  (about  A.  D. 
38)  he  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  with  whom  he  remains 
fifteen  days,  and  sees  James  also  (Gal  i,  17-19;  Acts  ix,  26,  27). 
While  remaining  in  Jerusalem  he  preaches  the  Gospel,  and,  his  life 
being  thereby  endangered,  he  is  sent  to  Tarsus  (Acts  ix,  29,  30).  A 
few  years  later  Barnabas  brings  him  from  Tarsus  to  Antioch,  and  he 
is  sent  along  with  Barnabas  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  with  alms 
Paul's  mission-  f°r  tne  relief  of  the  necessitous  Christians  during  the 
BIT  journeys,  famine  (about  A.  D.  45).  After  returning  from  this  mis 
sion,  through  the  suggestion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  sent  by  the 
Church  at  Antioch,  in  company  with  Barnabas,  upon  a  missionary 
tour,  and  visits  Seleucia  and.  Cyprus.  After  the  conversion  of  the 
proconsul  of  the  island,  Sergius  Paulus,  he  is  called  Paul,  the  name 
by  which  he  calls  himself  in  all  his  Epistles.  Jerome  '  supposes  that 
he  assumed  the  name  of  Paul  (or  Paulus)  from  the  name  of  this  pro 
consul  whom  he  had  brought  over  to  the  Christian  faith.  This  may 
be  the  real  ground  of  the  change,  though  it  admits  of  no  proof. 
After  this  he  visits  Perga,  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Iconium,  Lystra, 
Derbe,  and  returns  to  Antioch  from  his  mission.  When  the  dispute 
arose  at  Antioch  respecting  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law,  he  and 
Barnabas  were  sent  to  Jerusalem  to  consult  the  apostles  and  elders. 
This  was  Paul's  third  visit  to  Jerusalem,  to  which  he  refers  in  Gala- 
tians  ii,  i  :  "  Then  fourteen  years  after  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  with 
Barnabas."  If  we  count  these  fourteen  years  from  the  visit  he  made 
three  years  after  his  conversion,  this  third  visit  occurred  about  A.  D. 
52.  After  this  mission  Paul  preaches  the  gospel  at  Antioch,  and 
in  company  with  Silas  he  preaches  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  Derbe, 
Lystra,  Phrygia,  and  the  region  of  Galatia;  he  visits  Philippi,  where 
he  preaches  the  gospel,  is  imprisoned,  and  miraculously  delivered. 
He  passes  through  Amphipolis  and  Apollonia,  and  comes  to  Thes- 
1  De  Viris  Illus.  Paulus. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  647 

salonica,  where  he  preaches,  and  leaves  for  Berea,  where  he  also  pro 
claims  the  gospel,  and  comes  to  Athens,  where  he  preaches  at  the 
Areopagus.  From  Athens  he  passes  over  to  Corinth,  where  he  pro 
claims  the  gospel  for  eighteen  months,  and  writes  the  two  Epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians  about  A.  D.  54.  He  next  visits  Ephesus,  sails 
for  Csesarea,  and  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  returns  to  Antioch,  and 
passes  over  Galatia  and  Phrygia,  and  comes  to  Ephesus,  where  he 
preaches  the  gospel  for  two  years  and  three  months.  While  here 
he  writes  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  About  A.  D.  58  he 
leaves  Ephesus  for  Macedonia,  where  he  writes  the  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  visits  Greece,  especially  Corinth,  in  which 
city  he  writes  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

On  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  he  calls  at  Miletus,  where  he  ad 
dresses  the  assembled  elders  of  the  Ephesian  Church,  sails  for 
Caesarea,  and  goes  up  to  Jerusalem.  Here  he  is  arrested,  and  de 
tained  in  custody  about  two  years.  He  appeals  to  Caesar,  is  ship 
wrecked  on  the  voyage  to  Rome,  but  finally  reaches  the  city  about 
A.  D.  61  or  62.  Here  he  preaches  the  gospel  for  two  years  in  his 
own  hired  house,  and  writes  the  Epistles  to  Philemon,  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  to  the  Ephesians,  and  to  the  Philippians. 

At  this  point  the  history  of  Paul,  as  recorded  in  the  Acts,  ends, 
and  the  question  arises,  Was  he  released  at  the  end  of  ^^  re  rted 
the  two  years  ?  and  if  so,  where  did  he  preach,  and  where  of  the  later  w*. 
and  how  did  he  finish  his  career?  It  appears  from 
Philippians  ii,  24,  "  But  I  trust  in  the  Lord  that  I  also  myself  shall 
come  shortly,"  that  Paul  was  expecting  a  release  at  the  time  of  writ 
ing,  which  must  have  been  at  the  end  of  two  years,  from  the  manner 
in  which  he  speaks  of  the  effect  of  his  preaching  (chap,  i,  12-14). 

In  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  written  at  Rome  about  A.  D.  160,  men 
tion  is  made  of  "  Paul's  setting  out  from  the  city  [Rome]  for  Spain." 
This  is  valuable  testimony  to  the  release  and  departure  of  Paul. 
Clement  of  Rome,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written  not  later 
than  A.  D.  96,  in  speaking  of  Paul,  says  :  "  He  taught  the  whole 
world  righteousness,  and  having  go?ie  to  the  bound  of  the  west  (entf  rd 
repfia  T??C  duafiwc),1  and  having  borne  witness  before  rulers,  he  thus 
left  the  world,"  etc.  This  comes  from  the  bishop  of  Rome,  who  was 
doubtless  acquainted  with  Paul,  and  is  of  the  highest  value.  By 
"  the  bound  of  the  west,"  to  which  Paul  traveled,  Spain  is  in  all 
probability  meant.  No  writer  at  Rome  could  call  that  city  "the 
bound  of  the  west."  If  Paul  preached  in  Western  Europe,  he  must 


is  the  exact  Greek  of  the  passage,  as  published  by  Tischendorf  in  the  fac 
simile  of  the  MS.  of  the  Epistle,  and  it  is  confirmed  by  the  recently  discovered  copy 
of  the  Epistle  in  Constantinople,  published  by  Bryennius,  sec.  5. 


048  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

have  been  released  from  the  confinement  in  Rome  described  at  the 
end  of  the  Acts. 

In  2  Timothy  iv,  16  Paul  says  :  "  At  my  first  answer  (aTroAoyta,  de 
fence)  no  man  stood  with  me,  but  all  men  forsook  me."  It  is  evi 
dent  that  this  arraignment  of  the  apostle,  in  which  he  declares,  "  I 
am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my  departure  is  at 
hand  "  (2  Tim.  iv,  16),  is  different  from  any  appearance  of  his  before 
Nero  during  the  first  imprisonment  at  Rome,  for  Timothy  was  then 
with  him  (Philippians  i,  i).  Also  the  direction  to  Timothy,  "The 
cloak  that  I  left  at  Troas  with  Carpus,  when  thou  comest,  bring  with 
thee,  and  the  books,  but  especially  the  parchments"  (2  Tim.  iv,  13), 
indicates  in  all  probability  that,  not  long  before,  Paul  had  left  these 
articles  there,  and  that  he  must  have  been  released  from  his  first 
imprisonment.  We  may,  therefore,  safely  conclude  that  the  apostle 
was  released  from  his  first  imprisonment,  and  visited  Spain,  Mace 
donia,  and  Asia  Minor.  In  Romans  xv,  24  he  speaks  of  visiting 
Rome  on  his  way  to  Spain  ;  and  in  Philippians  ii,  24  he  says :  "  I 
trust  in  the  Lord  that  I  also  myself  shall  come  shortly."  It  would 
be  most  natural  to  suppose  that  he  visited  Spain  first,  and  afterward 
went  to  Macedonia  and  Asia  Minor.  But  the  order  in  which  he 
visited  these  places  we  cannot  determine. 

Caius,  presbyter  of  Rome  about  A.  D.  200,  says,  in  writing  to 
Paul's  death.  Proclus :  "  I  can  show  the  monuments  of  the  apostles 
[Peter  and  Paul].  For  if  you  are  willing  to  go  out  to  the  Vatican, 
or  take  the  road  to  Ostia,  you  will  find  the  monuments  [tombs]  of 
those  who  founded  this  Church."  Jerome  states  that  Paul  was  be 
headed  at  Rome  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Nero's  reign  (A.  D.  68) 
and  buried  in  the  road  to  Ostia,a  situated  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Tiber.8  Eusebius  also  states  that  Paul  was  beheaded  when  brought 
the  second  time  before  Nero.4 

The  oldest  and  most  trustworthy  account  of  St.  Paul  outside  of 
the  New  Testament  is  found  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to 
the  Corinthians  (written  A.  D.  93-96),  to  which  we  have  already  re 
ferred  :  "  On  account  of  envy  Paul  received  the  reward  of  his 
patience :  seven  times  was  he  in  bonds,  he  was  an  exile,  he  was 
stoned,  and  having  been  a  preacher  in  the  east  and  in  the  west,  he 
received  the  honourable  renown  of  his  faith  ;  and  having  taught  the 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxiv.  *  De  Viris  Illus.    Paulus. 

"About  one  and  a  quarter  miles  fromtne  wall  of  Rome  now  stands  the  splendid 
Basilica  of  Paul.  Under  this  Church  are  said  to  be  the  remains  of  St.  Paul,  with 
the  exception  of  the  head,  which  is  said  to  be  in  the  Lateran.  We  observed  on  the 
road  to  the  Basilica  an  inscription  stating  that  here  Peter  and  Paul,  going  to  mat- 
tyrdom,  separated.  4  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib  ii,  22,  25, 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  649 

whole  world  righteousness,  and  having  gone  to  the  bound  of  the 
west,  and  borne  witness  before  rulers,  he  thus  departed  from  the 
world,  and  went  to  the  holy  place,  having  become  the  greatest  ex 
ample  of  patience."  *  Clement  evidently  refers  to  the  martyrdom  of 
Paul,  since  before  speaking  of  him  he  says :  "  The  greatest  and  the 
most  faithful  pillars  have  been  persecuted,  and  suffered  even  unto 
death."8  It  is  also  very  likely  that  Paul  suffered  at  Rome  or  in  its 
vicinity,  otherwise  we  should  not  in  all  probability  have  the  particu 
lars  of  his  history  in  Clement.  Even  the  skeptical  Baur  remarks  : 
"  That  Paul  died  there  [in  Rome]  as  a  martyr  can  be  regarded  as 
an  historical  fact." ' 

The  Apostle  Paul  is  distinguished  for  profundity,  for  a  firm  adhe 
rence  to  great  principles,  for  a  broad  catholicity,  for  tolera-  CharacterjStica 
tion  in  things  non-essential,  and  for  great  practical  wis-  of  Pauiandnis 
dom.  His  extraordinary  natural  gifts  were  all  sanctified 
by  the  divine  Spirit  and  consecrated  to  Christ.  His  writings  are  dis 
tinguished  for  their  variety,  depth,  and  breadth.  All  the  great  doc 
trines  of  theology,  of  experimental  religion,  and  our  duties  to  God  and 
man,  are  set  forth  in  them  with  great  power.  Everywhere  his  Epistles 
are  permeated  with  the  spirit  of  Christ,  exhibiting  a  richness,  a  fulness, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  conciseness,  unparalleled  except  by  the  great 
Master  himself.  We  are  continually  impressed  with  the  deep  con 
viction  of  his  rich  experience  and  earnestness  and  his  universal  love. 


T 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS. 
THE    PERSONS   ADDRESSED. 

HE  Epistle  is  addressed  "  To  all  that  be  in  Rome,  beloved  of 
God,  called  to  be  saints  "  (chap,  i,  7).  The  Church  in  that  city 
embraced  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  In  chap,  ii,  17  the  writer  says: 
"  Behold,  thou  art  called  a  Jew,  and  restest  in  the  law,"  etc.;  and  in 
chap,  xi,  13  he  says:  "  For  I  speak  to  you  Gentiles;  inasmuch  as  I 
am  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  I  magnify  my  office."  And  in  other 
parts  of  the  Epistle  we  find  references  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
The  Jews  at  that  time  appear  to  have  been  numerous  in  Rome.4 

'Sec.  5. 

9  We  have  followed  here  the  Constantinople  text,  as  the  Alexandrian  is  defective. 

'Baur's  remark  we  take  from  Bleek's  Einleitung  by  Mangold,  from  Baur's  Paulus 
(2).  i,  p.  245. 

4  Horace  (Sat.  i,  9,  70)  refers  to  them  as  being  in  Rome  and  well-known. 


650  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Claudius  Cassar  banished '  them  from  that  city ;  but  in  the  time  of 
Nero,  when  Paul  arrived  there,  they  had  evidently  returned,  for  he 
called  together  the  chief  of  them."  ' 

It  is  not  known  by  whom  the  gospel  was  first  preached  in  Rome. 
Probable  origin  ^  *S'  nowever» not  improbable  that  some  Jews  from  Rome 
of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  converted  by  the 
preaching  of  Peter,  returning  to  the  Roman  metropolis, 
founded  a  Christian  Church  there.  In  this  Epistle  the  apostle  speaks 
of  the  Roman  Christians  as  follows  :  "  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  for  you  all,  that  your  faith  is  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole 
world  "  (chap,  i,  8),  and  declares  that  he  had  often  purposed  to  come 
unto  them  (chap,  i,  13).  The  Church  there  was  evidently  established 
at  a  very  early  period.  Tacitus,  in  speaking  of  the  Christians  when 
Rome  was  burnt  during  the  reign  of  Nero  (A.  0.64),  says  that  they 
were  "a  vast  multitude."1 

PLACE  'AND  TIME  OF  ITS  COMPOSITION. 

It  is  certain  that  St.  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  at  Corinth  during  his 
written  at  Cor-  second  sojourn  in  that  city.  He  speaks  of  Gains  as  his 
lnth-  host  (chap,  xvi,  23) ;  and  we  find  in  i  Corinthians  i,  14 

that  Gains  was  a  Corinthian  Christian  who  had  been  baptized  by 
Paul.  He  also  names  Erastus  (chap,  xvi,  23)  as  "the  chamberlain 
of  the  city,"  that  is,  Corinth,  and  with  this  agrees  his  statement, 
"  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth  "  (2  Tim.  iv,  20).  He  commends  unto 
the  Roman  Christians  Phebe,  a  servant  of  the  Church  at  Cenchrea 
(about  nine  miles  from  Corinth),  and  requests  them  to  receive  her 
as  becometh  saints.  These  references  show  that  Paul  was  at  Corinth  * 
when  he  wrote.  He  also  states  that  he  is  about  to  set  out  for  Jeru 
salem  to  take  to  the  poor  saints  in  that  city  the  contributions  from 
Macedonia  and  Achaia  (chap,  xv,  25,  26),  which  not  only  shows 
that  the  apostle  was  in  the  region  of  Corinth  when  he  wrote,  but  in 
dicates  the  time  of  writing,  as  we  find  in  the  Acts  that  Paul  imme 
diately  before  starting  for  Jerusalem  spent  three  months  in  Corinth, 
and  then  passed  through  Macedonia  (Acts  xx,  2-6).  Now  this  was 
Paul's  second  sojourn  in  Corinth,  and  accordingly  the  Epistle  was 
written  about  A.  D.  58  or  59. 

THE   GENUINENESS    OF   THIS    EPISTLE. 

Respecting  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  there  is  no  dispute.  It 
is  one  of  the  Epistles  that  even  the  Tubingen  school  acknowledge 

1  Acts  xviii,  2  ;  Suetonius,  cap.  xxv.      2  Acts  xxviii,  17.      "  Annal.,  lib.  xv,  cap.  xliv. 
4  At  the  end  of  the  Epistle  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  it  is  stated  that  it  was 
written  at  Corinth. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  631 

to  have  been  written  by  Paul.  It  was  also  universally  received  by 
the  ancient  Church  as  an  undoubted  writing  of  that  apos-  universal  ao- 
tle  and  was  evidently  used  by  Clement l  of  Rome  in  the  J°^lej|j[(J|£i 
first  century,  and  by  Polycarp,9  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  ness  of  tula 
John.  It  is  quoted  as  the  divine  word,  about  A.  D.  E^ile' 
180,  by  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,8  and  in  the  Epistles  written 
by  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna  to  the  Churches  in  Asia  Minor 4 
(A.  D.  177)  there  is  an  exact  quotation  of  Romans  viii,  18.  About 
the  s.ime  time  Irenseus  quotes  this  Epistle  as  having  been  written  by 
Paul  tD  the  Romans.* 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century,  in 
quoting  this  Epistle,  says  :  "  Paul,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
writes,"  *  etc.  Also  Tertullian,  at  Carthage  (about  A.  D.  200),  uses 
the  Epistle  as  the  writing  of  the  Apostle  Paul.7  It  was  quoted  by 
the  heretic  Basilides  8  about  A.  D.  125,  and  formed  a  part  of  the 
canon  of  Marcion  (A.  D.  140).  The  Epistle  was  written  for  Paul 
by  Tertius  (chap,  xvi,  22),  and  was  sent  to  the  Romans  no  doubt  by 
Phebe,  who  is  commended  to  the  Roman  Christians  (chap,  xvi,  i,  2). 
We  do  not  perceive  any  special  design  in  the  Epistle,  except  to  set 
forth  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Roman  Christians,  and 
to  inform  them  of  the  apostle's  desire  and  intention  to  visit  them 
and  preach  the  Gospel  to  them. 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  expresses  his  earnest  desire  to  see  the  Christians  at 
Rome,  and  preach  to  them  the  gospel  which  is  able  to  save  all  men. 
He  portrays  the  crimes  and  vices  of  the  pagan  world,  and  represents 
the  heathen  as  inexcusable  in  their  sins,  as  God  has  manifested  him 
self*  to  them  in  the  works  of  nature  and  in  conscience,  and  sets  forth 
the  divine  retributive  justice  in  rewarding  virtue  and  punishing  vice 
among  all  men,  affirming  that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  guilty 
before  him  (chaps,  i-iii,  20).  Sinners  can  be  justified  only  through 
the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ.  In  illustration  of  this  the  justifi 
cation  of  Abraham  by  faith  is  cited,  and  also  the  language  of  David 
(chaps,  iii,  2i-iv).  The  blessed  results  of  justification  by  faith  in 
Christ  are  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit  (chap.  v).  The  neces- 

1  The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  and  not  by  works  in  sec.  32  of  Clement's 
Epistle  is  based  on  Rom.  iii-v.     Sec.  35  refers  clearly  to  Rom.  i,  32. 
Compare  Polycarp's  Epistle,  sec.  6,  with  Rom.  xiv,  10,  12. 

Ad  Autolycum,  lib.  iii,  14,  in  which  he  refers  to  Rom.  xiii,  7,  8  ;  also  in  i,  14  he 
refers  to  Rom.  ii,  6,  8.  4  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  v,  cap.  i,  ft  aL 

6  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xvi,  3.  *  Stromata,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xi,  etc. 

*  Adversus  Gnosticos  Scorpiace,  cap.  xiii,  xiv,  and  elsewhere. 
9 In  Hippolytus,  Ref.  Haeres.,  lib  vii,  25. 


653  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

sity  of  leading  a  holy  life,  and  of  not  making  the  doctrine  of  justifica 
tion  by  faith  a  license  for  sin,  is  then  set  forth  (chaps,  vi,  vii).  The 
happy  condition  of  those  who  are  redeemed  through  Christ  and 
walk  after  the  Spirit  is  next  described  (chap.  viii).  The  rejection  ol 
the  mass  of  the  Jews  for  their  unbelief  has  parallels  in  their  ancient 
history,  and  God  has  always  had  a  faithful  people  among  them.  The 
divine  sovereignty  is  illustrated  in  the  history  of  Pharaoh.  The 
Jews  will  ultimately  embrace  Christianity  (chapters  ix-xi).  The 
previous  part  of  the  Epistle  is  doctrinal.  This  is  followed  by  a  sum 
mary  of  our  duties  to  God,  to  our  fellow-men  in  general;  and  to  our 
rulers  (chaps,  xii,  xiii).  Advice  is  given  respecting  those  who  have 
weak  consciences  (chaps,  xiv,  xv,  4). 

The  apostle  offers  a  prayer,  and  delivers  an  exhortation  to  the 
Roman  Christians,  refers  to  his  widely-extended  ministry,  and  de 
clares  the  intention  of  visiting  them  at  a  future  day,  but  that  he  is 
immediately  going  up  to  Jerusalem  to  convey  contributions  to  the 
poor  saints  in  that  city  (chap,  xv,  5-33).  The  Epistle  closes  with 
an  appendix  of  salutations  (chap.  xvi). 


INTEGRITY   OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  entire  Epistle  was  written  by  Paul. 

Did  the  E  istie  ^^e  ^ast  two  cnaPters>  it  seems,  were  rejected  by  Mar- 
end  with  chap-  cion,  for  Origen,  in  commenting  on  chapters  xvi,  25-27, 
remarks  :  "  Marcion,  by  whom  the  evangelical  and  apos 
tolical  writings  have  been  interpolated,  cut  off  this  chapter  entirely 
from  this  Epistle  ;  and  not  only  did  he  cut  off  this,  but  also  from  that 
passage  where  it  is  written,  Whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin,  he  cut 
off  every  thing  to  the  end ;  "  '  that  is,  he  cut  off  the  last  two  chapters. 
Baur,  also,  and  Schwegler  and  Zeller  deny  the  genuineness  of  these 
two  chapters.  But  their  Pauline  origin  is  acknowledged  by  Hilgen- 
feld.8  They  are  found  in  the  oldest  extant  Greek  MSS.,  the  Vatican, 
Sinaitic,  and  Alexandrian  ;  in  the  Peshito-Syriac,  the  Memphitic, 
the  ^Ethiopic,  Armenian,  and  Gothic  *  versions.  It  is  evident  from 
an  examination  of  the  Epistle  that  it  could  not  have  originally  ended 
with  chapter  xiv,  and  the  last  two  chapters  bear  the  Pauline  stamp, 
and  contain  several  undesigned  coincidences,  which  Paley  shows  in 
his  Horae  Paulince.  We  do  not  know  of  any  critical  editor  of  the 
New  Testament  who  rejects  these  two  chapters,  or  has  any  suspicion 
of  their  genuineness.  For  such  suspicion  no  grounds  exist. 

1  This  passage  we  have  given  from  the  Latin  translation  of  this  Commentary, 
The  Greek  is  lost.  9Einleitung,  322,  323. 

*  Parts  only  of  the  two  chapters  are  found  in  the  Gothic,  which  is  but  fragmentary 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  653 

This  Epistle  is,  perhaps,  the  grandest  of  all  the  writings  of  St.  Paul 
The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  can  alone  be  compared  with  it. 
It  is  a  great  treasury  of  the  sublime  doctrines,  duties,  and  privileges 
of  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS. 

THE    PERSONS   ADDRESSED. 

/CORINTH,  on  a  narrow  isthmus  between  the  Saronic  and  Corin- 
^  thian  Gulfs,  was  founded  at  a  very  early  period,  most  probably 
by  the  Phoenicians.  Possessing  great  facilities  for  commerce,  it  be 
came  a  splendid  city,  and  at  the  time  it  was  destroyed  by  the 
consul  Mummius  (B.  C.  146)  was  "  the  richest  in  Greece,  and 
abounded  in  statues,  paintings,  and  other  works  of  art."  It  was 
called  by  Cicero  "the  light  of  all  Greece."1  After  having  been 
thoroughly  destroyed,  it  remained  in  ruins  for  about  a  century,  until 
Julius  Caesar  sent  thither  a  colony  (B.  C.  46),  and  about  a  hundred 
years  later,  when  visited  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  it  had  again  become 
an  important  city.  Strabo  visited  it,  and  in  his  description,  written 
about  A.  D.  20,  he  represents  it  as  situated  at  the  foot  and  on  the 
north  side  of  a  peak  (or  hill  Acrocorinthus)  something  more  than  a 
third  of  a  mile  in  height.3 

The  Church  in  this  city  was  founded  by  Saint  Paul,  who  came 
here  from  Macedonia  and  Athens  about  A.  D.  52,  and  The  foundation 
preached  the  gospel  at  least  a  year  and  a  half,  assisted  Jf^th^corin" 
by  Timothy,  Silas,  and  others  (Acts  xviii,  1-18).  The  twan  Church. 
Christian  society  was  large,  and  composed  almost  entirely  of  Gentiles 
(Acts  xviii,  6,  8). 

About  three  years  after  the  apostle  had  left  the  Corinthian  dis 
ciples  he  was  informed  that  there  were  divisions  among  them,  and 
that  various  abuses  had  crept  into  the  Church.  In  the  time  inter 
vening  between  Paul's  preaching  and  the  writing  of  the  Epistle, 
Apollos,  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  eloquent  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures, 
having  received  full  instruction  on  Christian  doctrine  at  Ephesus, 
went  to  Corinth  and  preached  the  gospel.  In  the  illustration  of 
Christianity  he  probably  drew  largely  on  the  Greek  philosophy  of 
Alexandria,  and  highly  delighted  the  intellectual  Corinthians.  Some 
of  his  hearers  preferred  him  to  Paul ;  others,  especially  such  as  had 
come  over  to  Christianity  from  Judaism,  preferred  Peter,  as  being 
^ro  Lege  ManiL,  sec.  iv.  *Lib.  viii,  379. 


Q:A  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

an  original  apostle  of  Christ,  and  denied  the  apostleship  of  Paul. 
The  most,  however,  doubtless  adhered  to  Paul.  Still  others,  attach 
ing  no  importance  to  any  Christian  teacher,  satisfied  themselves  with 
the  doctrines  of  Christ,  which  had  been  delivered  to  them  without 
any  exposition  from  human  authority.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
real  state  of  the  case.  The  apostle  does  not  charge  them  with  grave 
errors  in  departing  from  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  but  with 
creating  divisions  in  the  Church. 

It  appears  from  chap,  vii,  i  that  the  Corinthians  had  already  writ 
ten  to  Paul  concerning  certain  matters,  so  that  he  had  reasons  of  a 
most  urgent  character  for  writing  to  them. 

PLACE   AND   TIME    OF    ITS    COMPOSITION. 

The  Epistle  was  evidently  written  at  Ephesus,  near  the  close  of  the 

apostle's  ministry  of  twenty-seven   months  in  that  city 
Notices  in  the    /  .    N  Tr     .  . 

Acts  of  Paul's   (Acts  xix),  about  A.  D.  57  or  58.     Various  references  in 

the  EPistle  compared  with  the  Acts  determine  this  place 
and  this  time.  In  the  Epistle  (chap,  xvi,  8)  the  apostle 
says:  "I  will  tarry  at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost."  In  harmony  with 
this  as  the  place  of  writing  is :  "  The  Churches  of  Asia  salute  you  " 
(chap,  xvi,  19).  In  chapter  xvi,  2-6  the  apostle  gives  directions  re 
specting  contributions  for  the  poor  at  Jerusalem,  stating  that  if  it 
is  proper  he  himself  will  go  to  Jerusalem  along  with  the  persons 
appointed  to  take  the  contributions  to  that  city;  and  that  he  will 
pay  the  Corinthians  a  visit  when  he  passes  through  Macedonia.  In 
chap,  iv,  17  he  tells  the  Corinthians  that  he  has  sent  Timothy  unto 
them ;  and  in  chap,  xvi,  10  he  gives  directions,  if  "  Timotheus  come, 
see  that  he  may  be  with  you  without  fear."  We  find  in  Acts  xix,  xx 
that  St.  Paul,  a  short  time  before  he  left  Ephesus,  sent  Timothy  into 
Macedonia,  and  then  went  through  it  himself  to  Corinth,  where  he 
remained  three  months,  and  then  returned  through  Macedonia,  and 
went  up  to  Jerusalem.  It  appears  from  Acts  xviii,  26  that  Aquila 
and  Priscilla  were  at  Ephesus  during  the  apostle's  abode  in  that 
city ;  and  with  this  harmonizes  the  salutation  :  "  Aquila  and  Pris 
cilla  salute  you  much  in  the  Lord  "  (chap,  xvi,  19).  It  would  seem 
that  it  was  about  one  year  before  the  beginning  of  Paul's  ministry  at 
Ephesus  that  Apollos,  having  come  to  Ephesus  and  received  full 
instruction  in  Christianity,  went  to  Corinth,  where  he  preached  the 
gospel  (Acts  xviii,  24-xix,  i). 

In  chapter  v,  9  the  apostle  refers  to  a  former  Epistle  addressed  to 
the  Corinthians,  which  is  no  longer  extant.  It  is  very  probable  that 
the  matter  discussed  was  not  of  a  general  nature,  and  that  the  two 
subsequent  Epistles  of  Paul,  which  we  now  have,  so  completely  cov- 


OF  THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  655 

ered  the  ground  that  the  first  Epistle  had  no  further  interest,  and,  of 
course,  would  naturally  perish. 

CONTENTS   OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

The  apostle  reproves  the  party  spirit  and  dissensions  of  the  Co 
rinthian  Christians,  and  justifies  himself  in  not  dealing  in  Greek  wis 
dom  when  he  preached  among  them.  He  affirms  that  this  wisdom 
cannot  lead  men  to  God  ;  but  that  the  gospel  he  preached  was  ac 
companied  by  the  divine  Spirit,  and  by  miraculous  power ;  and  that, 
further,  the  natural  man  is  incapable  of  understanding  spiritual 
truth  (chap.  ii).  He  charges  the  Corinthians  with  being  carnal, 
since  party  spirit  prevails  among  them,  and  affirms  that  himself  and 
Apollos  are  merely  ministers  of  the  word,  and  that  it  is  God  who 
gives  success.  He  shows  them  that,  after  all,  the  various  ministers  of 
the  gospel  are  theirs,  and  vindicates  his  apostolic  authority,  and 
speaks  of  his  persecutions  and  sufferings  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and 
declares  that  he  is  their  father  in  the  gospel  (chaps,  iii,  iv).  From 
the  vindication  of  his  apostolic  authority  he  passes  to  the  correction 
of  abuses  in  the  Church,  and  censures  severely  the  crime  of  one's 
having  his  father's  wife,  and  states  how  they  should  deal  with  such  a 
member,  at  the  same  time  exhorting  them  to  be  holy  in  life,  and  to 
associate  with  no  bad  man  professing  the  religion  of  Christ  (chap.  v). 
He  disapproves  of  Christians  going  to  law  with  each  other.  He 
declares  that  the  unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  warns  them  against  impurity  (chap.  vi).  He  discusses  marriage, 
which  he  declares  in  some  cases  is  necessary,  but  in  the  present  state 
of  the  Church  has  many  inconveniences  (chap.  vii).  He  explains 
that  an  idol  is  nothing,  yet  it  is  not  advisable  to  eat  meat  sacrificed 
to  idols  when  it  would  offend  weak  brethren  (chap.  viii).  He  affirms 
that  it  is  right  that  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  should  be  supported, 
but  that  he  has  not  availed  himself  of  that  privilege,  and  that  he  had 
laboured  solely  for  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  becoming  all  things  to 
all  men  (chap.  ix).  He  warns  them  against  sin  from  the  examples 
of  Jewish  history,  and  cautions  them  against  taking  a  part  in  idol 
atrous  sacrifices,  and  eating  any  thing  sacrified  to  idols  when  it  would 
give  offence  (chapter  x).  He  gives  directions  respecting  women 
keeping  their  heads  covered  during  divine  service,  and  condemns  the 
way  in  which  they  celebrate  the  communion  (chap.  xi).  He  dis 
cusses  the  various  offices  in  the  Church,  which  are  constituted  for 
the  general  good  (chap.  xii).  He  gives  a  description  of  love,  without 
which  he  declares  every  other  gift  is  useless,  and  while  every  thing 
else  passes  away,  faith,  hope,  and  love  remain,  but  the  greatest  of 
these  is  love  (chap.  xiii).  He  adds  directions  respecting  the  manner 


fi>6  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

in  which  the  spiritual  gifts,  especially  that  of  tongues,  are  to  be  used 
(chap.  xiv).  The  apostle  enumerates  the  testimonies  to  the  resur 
rection  of  Christ,  which  he  declares  to  be  the  vital  fact  in  the  religion 
of  Christ,  and  discusses  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  from  natural 
analogies,  and  exhorts  them  to  steadfastness  (chap.  xv).  In  the  con 
cluding  chapter  (xvi)  Paul  counsels  them  concerning  collections, 
and  promises  to  visit  them  some  time  after  Pentecost ;  gives  direc 
tions  also  about  the  reception  of  Timothy,  their  treatment  of  the 
house  of  Stephanus,  and  other  matters,  and  sends  greetings. 

GENUINENESS   OF   THIS   EPISTLE. 

Concerning  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  there  never  has  been 
Ancient  testi-  any  doubt.  Even  the  Tubingen  school  of  critics  ac- 
monies.  knowledge  it  to  be  Paul's.  It  is  referred  to  by  Clement 

of  Rome  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written  A.  D.  93-96,  less 
than  forty  years  after  the  apostle  wrote  it.  "  Take  into  your  hands," 
says  he,  u  the  Epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul  the  apostle.  What  did  he 
first  write  concerning  you  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  ?  In  truth, 
he  wrote  to  you  in  a  spiritual  way  respecting  himself,  and  Cephas, 
and  Apollos,  on  account  of  your  having,  even  then,  shown  your  par 
tisan  feelings," '  etc.  It  is  also  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Polycarp  :  "  Do 
we  not  know  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ?  as  Paul  teaches." '' 
Irenaeus  frequently  quotes  it,  and  in  several  places  attributes  it  to 
Paul.8  It  is  quoted  by  Athenagoras  4  (about  A.  D.  177)  as  the  writing 
of  the  apostle.  Clement  of  Alexandria 5  quotes  it  as  the  First  Epis 
tle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians.  So  does  Tertullian.8  In  the  Epistle 
to  Diognetus  it  is  cited :  "  The  apostle  says."  r  It  is  also  referred  to 
in  several  places  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
undoubted  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  is  of  the  highest  importance, 
as  Paul,  who  had  been  in  the  company  of  the  apostles,  states  the  ap 
pearances  of  Christ  to  the  apostles  and  others  after  his  resurrection  9 
(chap,  xv,  4-8). 

In  importance  of  doctrine  this  Epistle  stands  next  to  that  to  the 
Romans,  and  the  description  of  love  (chap,  xiii)  is  the  finest  passage 
on  that  subject  in  the  New  Testament. 

'Sec.  47.  »Sec.  II ;  compare  with  this  I  Cor.  vi,  2. 

8  As  in  Contra  Haereses.  lib.  iii,  cap.  xviii,  3  ;  lib.  iv,  cap.  xii,  2  ;  cap.  xv,  2. 

*  De  Resur.  Mortuorum,  cap.  xviii.  *  Paedag.  i,  cap.  vL 
'Praescrip.  xxxiii.  T  Sec.  xii. 

•  The  skeptical  Keim  of  Zurich,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  bases  the  resur 
rection  of  Christ  upon  the  testimony  of  Paul  in  this  chapter  (xv). 


OF  THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  657 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    TO  THE    CORINTHIANS. 
THE   PLACE  AND   TIME   OF   ITS   COMPOSITION. 

Epistle  was  certainly  written  from  Macedonia.  In  chapter 
ii,  13  the  apostle  speaks  of  having  gone  into  that  country;  also 
in- chap,  vii,  5.  In  chapter  ix,  2  he  says,  in  speaking  of  the  benevo 
lence  of  the  Achaeans,  "  for  which  I  am  boasting  of  you  to  them  of 
Macedonia,  that  Achaia  was  ready  a  year  ago."  This  clearly  shows 
that  he  wrote  in  Macedonia.  From  references  which  the  apostle 
makes  to  the  First  Epistle  it  is  clear  that  the  Second  was  written  not 
long  after  the  First.  It  is  seen  in  Acts  xix,  xx,  i,  2,  that  after  Paul 
left  Ephesus  he  passed  through  Macedonia  on  his  way  to  Corinth. 
While  in  Macedonia  he  writes  this  Epistle,  in  which  he  informs  the 
Corinthians  that  he  is  on  the  point  of  visiting  them  (chaps,  xii, 
14,  20,  21 ;  xiii,  i).  He 'refers  to  the  troubles  which  he  had  in  Asia 
(chap,  i,  8,  10),  alluding  to  the  uproar  in  Ephesus  just  before  he  left 
the  city  (Acts  xix,  24-41).  Thus  it  is  clear  that  it  was  written  about 
six  months  after  the  First  Epistle,  about  A.  D.  58  or  59. 

Paul  appears  to  have  sent  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  by 
Titus  (2  Cor.  viii,  16-18),  who  returned  to  him  in  Macedonia  from 
them,  and  reported  the  condition  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  the 
good  effect  the  First  Epistle  had  had  on  them  (2  Cor.  vii,  6-16). 
Upon  the  receipt  of  this  information  Paul  writes  this  second  letter, 
to  console  them,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  his  coming,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  urge  them  to  have  their  contributions  ready.  Although 
especially  addressed  to  the  Corinthians,  it  includes  "  all  the  saints 
that  are  in  all  Achaia  "  (chap,  i,  i). 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  rejoices  in  the  consolation  he  receives  from  God  in 
trouble,  by  which  he  is  enabled  to  comfort  others  who  are  in  trouble, 
affirming  that  both  his  sorrows  and  joys  contribute  to  their  salvation. 
He  also  refers  to  his  sufferings  in  Asia  and  his  deliverance  from  death. 
He  rejoices  in  the  testimony  of  a  good  conscience,  and  declares  that 
it  had  been  his  intention  to  pass  through  Corinth  on  his  way  to 
Macedonia,  but  that  he  had  deemed  it  best  for  them  that  he  should 
not  come.  He  describes  the  sorrow  with  which  he  wrote  the  First 

VOL.  I.— 42 


658  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Epistle,  and  exhorts  them  to  forgive  and  comfort  the  excommuni 
cated  person.  He  speaks  of  his  disappointment  in  not  finding  Titus 
at  Troas.  His  preaching,  while  it  saves  some,  is  resisted  by  others 
(chaps,  i,  ii).  The  apostle  declares  that  he  needs  no  epistles  of  com 
mendation  to  them,  as  they  are  the  Epistles  of  Christ,  written  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  through  the  ministration  of  the  apostle,  and  describes  the 
glorious  ministration  of  the  Spirit,  by  comparing  it  with  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  (chap.  iii).  He  gives  a  description  of  his  preaching 
and  sufferings  for  the  Gospel,  and  declares  his  longing  after  eternal 
life,  and  speaks  of  his  faithful  discharge  of  his  apostolic  duties,  and 
his  earnest  efforts  to  bring  men  to  Christ.  He  describes  at  length 
his  varied  experience,  placing  in  striking  contrast  its  different  shades 
(chaps,  iv,  v,  vi,  1-13).  He  exhorts  them  not  to  be  unequally  yoked 
together  with  unbelievers,  but  to  purify  themselves  from  all  sin.  He 
asserts  strongly  his  integrity  and  his  affection  for  them,  and  declares 
how  he  was  comforted  when  Titus  returned  from  them  and  informed 
him  of  the  good  effect  of  his  letter  (chap,  vi,  i4-vii).  He  reminds 
them  of  the  liberality  of  the  Macedonians,  and  of  the  example  of 
Christ,  who  became  poor  for  us,  and  exhorts  them  not  to  fall  short  in 
their  contributions  in  aid  of  the  poor.  He  informs  them  that  he 
has  sent  Titus  to  conduct  the  collection,  and  also  another  brother, 
whose  praise  in  the  gospel  is  in  all  the  Churches.  He  expresses 
confidence  in  their  liberality,  and  encourages  them  to  give  liberally, 
as  it  will  redound  to  their  advantage,  and  cause  others  to  be  grateful 
to  God  and  to  pray  for  them  (chaps,  viii,  ix).  He  vindicates,  against 
his  enemies,  his  conduct  and  preaching.  He  expresses  a  jealous  fear 
lest  they  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  and 
enters  into  a  full  vindication  of  his  apostolic  character,  recounts  his 
labours,  and  declares  that  he.  is  not  a  whit  behind  the  chief  apostles. 
He  states  that  he  was  caught  up  into  Paradise,  and  heard  things  not 
to  be  uttered ;  and,  that  he  might  not  be  exalted  above  measure,  a 
thorn  was  put  into  his  flesh  (chaps,  x,  xi,  xii,  1-12).  He  declares 
that  he  exhibited  among  them  the  signs  of  an  apostle ;  that  now  he 
is  coming  to  them  for  the  third  time,  and  that  he  will  not  be  burden 
some  to  them.  He  expresses  a  fear  that  he  will  not  find  them  such 
as  he  would  wish  them  to  be,  and  exhorts  them  to  examine  them 
selves  and  prepare  for  his  coming,  as  he  will  not  spare  the  guilty 
(chaps,  xii,  i3~xiii). 


OF   THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  659 

GENUINENESS   OF   THIS   EPISTLE. 

There  is  no  dispute  '  concerning  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle; 
it  is  acknowledged  even  by  the  Tubingen  school.  It  was  every 
where  received  by  the  early  Church  as  the  writing  of  Paul.  It  is 
called  the  Second  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  by  Irenaeus,* 
by  Clement 8  of  Alexandria,  by  Tertullian,4  by  the  Peshito-Syriac, 
and  the  Canon  of  Muratori. 

The  Epistle  is  full  of  personal  allusions,  and  bears  the  undoubted 
stamp  of  Paul's  character.  It  is  not  equal  to  the  first  in  sublimity 
and  grandness  of  conception,  but  is  almost  wholly  occupied  with  the 
relations  existing  between  the  apostle  and  the  Corinthians. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    GALATIANS. 
THE   PERSONS    ADDRESSED. 

/^ALATIA,  called  also  Gallo-Graecia  by  Strabo,  derived  its  name 
^•^  from  the  Gauls,6  who  settled  in  that  region  in  the  third  century 
before  Christ.  It  was  situated  near  the  middle  of  Asia 


of 

Minor,  having  Bithynia  and  Paphlagonia  for  its  northern  the  population 
boundary  ;  Phrygia  for  its  western  ;  Lycaonia  for  its  ° 
southern  ;  and  Pontus  and  Cappadocia  for  its  eastern.  Strabo  states 
that  of  "  the  Galatians  there  are  three  nations,  two  of  them  called 
after  the  name  of  their  leaders,  Trocmi  and  Tolistobogii  ;  and  the 
third  named  from  the  nation  among  the  Celts,  Tectosages."  *  Jerome 
states  in  his  time  :  "  The  Galatians  —  excepting  the  Greek,  which  all 
the  East  speaks  —  have  nearly  the  same  language  T  which  the  Treviri  ' 
have."9  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  most  of  them  understood 
Greek,  so  that  there  could  have  been  no  difficulty  either  in  preach- 


this  remark  Bruno  Baur  is  ever  an  exception,  as  he  denied  the  genuine 
ness  of  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  He  must  not  be  confounded  with 
C.  F  Baur,  a  man  incomparably  his  superior. 

1  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  vii,  i.  He  quotes  it  as  Paul's,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxx,  7  : 
'  For  the  Apostle  says  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,"  iv,  cap.  xxviii,  3. 

'"The  Apostle  in  the  Second  to  the  Corinthians."  —  Stromata,  iv,  16. 

4  De  Pudicitia,  cap.  xiii.       §  Gauls  were  called  Galatae  by  Strabo.       f  Lib.  xii,  566. 

*  Jerome  could  speak  from  his  own  personal  knowledge,  as  he  had  spent  consid 
erable  time  at  Treviri  (Trdves),  and  afterwards  traveled  through  Galatia. 

*  In  Northern  Gaul,  the  chief  city  of  which  district  in  modern  times  is  called 
Tr&ves.  'Comment,  in  Galat.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  iii. 


660  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

ing  or  writing  to  them  in  that  language.  It  appears  also  that  "as 
early  as  the  time  of  Augustus  many  Jews  lived  in  Galatia,  to  whom 
the  emperor  granted  a  letter  of  protection."  These  Jexvs,  then,  and 
others  who  doubtless  adhered  to  them,  would  naturally  be  first  ad 
dressed,  and  the  converts  from  among  them  would  form  the  nucleus 
of  the  Church,  which  had  already  become  very  powerful  in  that  re 
gion  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century.1 

Paul  and  Timothy  preached  the  gospel  to  the  Galatians  about 
rne  origin  of  A<  D-  52  (Acts  xvi,  6).  About  three  years  later  the  apos- 
the  Gaiatian  tie  passes  through  the  country  of  Galatia  and  Phrygia, 
strengthening  the  disciples  (Acts  xviii,  23).  These  are 
all  the  references  to  the  Galatians  in  the  Acts.  In  the  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  (chap,  xvi,  i)  Paul  states  that  he  had  "  given 
order  to  the  Churches  of  Galatia  "  respecting  a  collection.  The  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  about  A.  D.  58,  and  Paul 
refers  here  to  his  visitation  of  the  Galatians  about  three  years  earlier, 
which  was  his  second  missionary  tour  through  that  country. 

It  seems  from  chapter  iv,  8  that  the  greatest  part  of  the  Gaiatian 
Church  were  converted  Gentiles  :  "  When  ye  knew  not  God,  ye  did 
service  unto  them  which  by  nature  are  no  gods."  The  Epistle  is 
addressed  to  no  particular  society,  but  in  a  general  way  "  unto  the 
Churches  of  Galatia,"  because,  doubtless,  the  converts  were  scattered 
in  small  towns  and  villages. 

TIME,  PLACE,  AND   OCCASION    OF   THE   WRITING   OF   THE    EPISTLE. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  after  his  sec 
ond  visit  to  the  Galatians,  as  he  says,  "  Ye  know  that  through  weak 
ness  of  the  flesh  I  preached  the  Gospel  unto  you  at  the  first'' 
(chap,  iv,  13),  which  implies  that  he  had  preached  to  them  a  second 
time.  This  second  visit  was  made  about  A.  D.  55,  beyond  which  the 
Epistle  must  be  placed.  Paul's  language  indicates  that  but  a  few 
years  had  elapsed  since  they  were  converted  ;  "  I  marvel  that  you 
are  so  soon  abandoning  for  another  gospel  him  who  called  you  by 
the  grace  of  Christ  "  (chap,  i,  6). 

In  discussing  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  the  apostle 
gives  some  of  the  same  illustrations  that  he  uses  in  the  Epistle  to  me 
Romans.  In  both  we  find  that  he  dwells  upon  the  justifying  faith 
of  Abraham.  Now,  it  is  very  natural,  in  writing  on  the  same  sub 
ject  at  the  same  time,  to  use  very  similar  arguments  and  illustrations, 
modified  only  to  meet  some  specific  differences.  As  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  was  written  during  Paul's  visit  to  Corinth  (Acts  xx,  3), 
about  A.  D.  58  or  59,  it  is  probable  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
1  As  appears  from  an  Epistle  of  Pliny. 


OF  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  661 

was  written  at  the  same  place  and  about  the  same  time.  But  upon 
these  points  there  is  no  certainty  nor  high  probability  to  be  derived 
from  internal  or  external  evidence. 

Respecting  the  occasion  upon  which  it  was  written,  it  is  evident  from 
the  Epistle  itself  that  Judaizing  teachers  had  appeared  The  occasion  of 
among  the  Galatians  after  the  apostle  left  them,  and  very  ^vo^SadeT 
positively  asserted  that  it  was  necessary  to  salvation  to  the  teachers  of 
observe  the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  to  keep  the  law  of  Judaiam. 
Moses.  It  would  seem  that  these  teachers,  at  the  same  time,  declared 
that  Paul  was  not  an  original  apostle,  that  he  was  not  an  eyewitness 
of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  had  received  authority  from  the  Church 
alone  to  preach,  and  was  merely  a  subordinate  teacher.  The  Epistle, 
accordingly,  is  devoted  chiefly  to  a  vindication  of  his  independent 
apostolic  authority,  and  a  defense  of  the  great  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith. 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  severely  reproves  the  Galatians  for  departing  from 
the  gospel  which  he  had  preached  among  them,  and  he  pronounces 
every  one  accursed  who  shall  preach  a  different  one.  He  affirms 
that  he  received  his  gospel  immediately  from  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
he  did  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem  until  three  years  after  his  conversion, 
and  saw  there  of  the  apostles  only  Peter  and  James.  He  gives  an 
account  of  another  visit  to  Jerusalem  fourteen  years  later,  when 
he  had  an  interview  with  James,  Cephas,  and  John,  who  extended  to 
him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  approved  of  his  labor  among 
the  Gentiles.  He  states  that  at  Antioch  he  reproved  Peter  for  in 
consistency  in  his  conduct  respecting  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  at 
the  same  time  he  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  in 
Christ  without  the  works  of  the  law  (chaps,  i,  ii).  He  remonstrates 
with  the  Galatians,  and  charges  them  with  beginning  in  the  Spirit 
and  finishing  with  the  flesh.  He  shows  that  Abraham's  justification 
by  faith  was  prophetical,  and  typical  of  the  justification  of  the  Gen 
tiles  by  faith  in  Christ ;  that  the  law  is  our  schoolmaster  to  bring 
us  to  Christ,  who  hath  freed  us  from  the  law's  curse,  and  that  now  we 
are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmaster,  or  under  bondage,  but  are  the 
sons  of  God,  in  proof  of  which  God  has  given  us  his  Holy  Spirit. 
He  reminds  them  of  their  former  ardent  affection  for  him.  Under 
the  allegory  of  the  two  sons  of  Abraham,  Ishmael  by  a  bondwoman, 
Agur,  and  Isaac  by  a  free  woman,  Sarah,  he  shows  that  the  children 
of  the  Sinaitic  covenant  (Agur)  are  in  bondage,  while  the  children  of 
the  free  woman,  the  faithful  in  Christ,  belonging  to  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  are  free.  He  exhorts  them  to  stand  fast  in  this  liberty 
which  Christ  has  given  them,  and  affirms  that  in  relying  upon  cir- 


662  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

cumcision  for  salvation  they  receive  no  benefit  from  Christ,  and  are 
bound  to  keep  the  whole  law.  He  warns  them  not  to  use  their 
Mberty  for  an  occasion  to  serve  the  flesh.  He  affirms  that  "  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  "  is  the  sum  of  the  law.  He  gives 
a  list  of  the  deeds  of  the  flesh,  and  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  (chaps, 
iii,  iv,  v). 

Paul  exhorts  the  spiritual  to  restore  any  one  overtaken  in  a  fault, 
and  admonishes  them  to  bear  each  other's  burdens,  warns  them 
against  self-conceit,  and  exhorts  them  not  to  be  weary  in  well-doing. 
He  tells  them  that  those  who  wish  to  have  them  circumcised  wish 
thereby  to  escape  persecution,  but  do  not  themselves  keep  the  law. 
He  prays  that  he  may  glory  in  nothing  but  Christ  crucified,  affirm- 
ing  that  nothing  avails  but  a  new  creature  (chap.  vi). 

THE   GENUINENESS   OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

That  St.  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  is  undoubted,  and  its  genuine- 
Acknowledged  ness  *s  acknowledged  by  the  Tubingen  school.  It  was 
by  the  Tubin-  universally  attributed  to  Paul  by  the  ancient  Church, 
gen  school.  Jt  -g  quoted  by  irenaeus '  as  Paul's,  by  Clement  *  of  Alex 
andria,  and  by  Tertullian  ;*  it  is  found  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  and 
the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  was  used  by  Marcion.  The  Epis 
tle  everywhere  shows  the  genuine  apostolic  spirit  and  the  peculiar 
ities  of  Paul.  It  is  important  for  its  defence  of  the  great  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith. 


T 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS. 

THE  PERSONS  ADDRESSED. 

HE  Epistle  bears  the  inscription,  "  To  the  Ephesians ;"  and  in  the 
most  of  the  MSS.  the  reading  is,  "  To  the  saints  who  are  in  Eph- 
"Epnesus"  not  esus."  Tregelles  has  adopted,  "  in  Ephesus  "  in  his  text, 
in  some  MSS.  an(j  Tischendorf  inserts  it  in  brackets  (verse  i),  and  re 
marks  that  he  concludes  it  did  not  come  from  Paul.  In  the  Codex 
Vaticanus  of  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  the  superscription  is, 
u  To  the  Ephesians;"  but  in  the  first  verse  "  in  Ephesus"  is  want 
ing.  In  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  of  the  same  age,  "  in  Ephesus"  is  also 
wanting  in  the  first  verse,  though  the  Epistle  has  the  superscription, 
"To  the  Ephesians."  The  first  verse  in  these  two  most  ancient 

1  Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii,  cap.  vi,  4 ;  cap.  vii.  2.     He  also  quotes  it  in  other  places, 
•Stromata,  lib.  iii,  cap.  xv.  8De  Prsescrip.,  cap.  vi. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  663 

Codices  is :  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  will  of  God,  to 
those  who  are  saints,1  and  to  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus."  Origen  *  says 
that  he  found  in  the  Ephesians  only  the  expression,  "  To  the  saints 
who  are  "  (rote  ayioiq  rol$  ovoi),  and  he  asks,  if  it  is  not  redundant, 
what  does  it  mean  ?  From  which  it  is  clear  that  in  his  MSS.  Ephe- 
sus  was  wanting  in  the  first  verse  of  the  Epistle. 

Basil  the  Great,  of  Cappadocia,  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  in  writing  against  Eunomius,  remarks :  "  When  he  (Paul) 
wiote  to  the  Ephesians  as  being  truly  united  by  knowledge  to  him 
who  exists  (TO>  6vrt,  the  self -existent  Being})  in  a  peculiar  way  he  called 
them  existing  (dvTov$  flvraf ),  saying :  *  To  the  saints  who  are,  and  to 
the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus.'  For  thus  those  who  were  before  us 
have  delivered  it,  and  we  have  found  it  in  the  ancient  copies."1  It 
is  evident,  then,  that  while  the  superscription  was,  "  To  the  Ephe 
sians,"  Ephesus  was  not  in  the  text  of  the  old  MSS.;  at  least,  it  was 
wanting  in  many  of  them,  and  we  have  already  seen  that  it  is  want 
ing  in  our  two  most  ancient  Codices 4  belonging  to  the  age  of  Basil. 

Tertullian  says :  "  The  Epistle  which  we  have  with  the  title  To  the 
Ephesians,  the  heretics  have,  To  the  Laodiceans"  Again,  Tertulllan  on 
he  remarks :  "  This  Epistle  we  have  through  the  integ-  the  differences 
rity  of  the  Church — sent  to  the  Ephesians,  not  to  the  Laodi-  of  the  MSS* 
ceans;  but  Marcion  preferred  to  change  its  title,  as  if  he  was  also  a 
very  industrious  investigator  in  this  matter.  But  titles  are  of  no  im 
portance,  since,  when  the  apostle  wrote  to  certain  persons,  he  wrote 
to  all."  '  It  is  clear,  then,  that  Marcion's  Epistles  had  the  inscrip 
tion  :  "  To  the  Laodiceans."  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Tertullian 
does  not  charge  Marcion  with  altering  the  reading  "  Ephesus  "  into 
"  Laodicea  "  in  the  first  verse.  Nor  does  he  say  that  "  in  Ephesus  " 
was  found  in  the  text  of  the  MSS.  in  use  in  the  Church.  Had  Mar 
cion  altered  "  in  Ephesus  "  into  "  in  Laodicea,"  Tertullian  would 
have  said  so,  and  would  not  have  satisfied  himself  with  remarking 
that  "  Titles  are  of  no  importance." 

It  is  not  easy  to  see,  in  a  matter  like  this,  how  Marcion  could  have 
aided  his  heretical  doctrines  by  changing  the  superscription  from 
"  Ephesus  "  into  "  Laodicea,"  and  he  must  therefore  have  found  MSS. 
with  the  latter  superscription.  It  accordingly  appears  that  the  Greek 

The  Greek  is,  roZf  ayioiq  rotf  overt,  To  the  saints  who  are,  or  are  existing — very 
awkward  Greek  and  English  without  some  word  indicating  place. 
'Kramer's  Catena,  in  Tregelles'  Greek  Text.  "Lib.  ii,  cap.  xix. 

*  Ephesus  is,  however,  written  on  the  margin  by  a  later  hand 
*Ecclesise  quidem  veritate  epistolam  istam  ad  Ephesios  habemus  emissam,  non  ad 
Laodicenos;  ped  Marcion  ei  titulum  aliquando  interpolare  gestiit,  quasi  et  in  isto 
diligentissimus  cxplorator.     Nihil  autem  de  titulis  interest,  cum  ad  omnes  Apostclua 
scripserit,  dum  ad  quosdam. — Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  v,  cap.  xvii. 


664  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STJDY 

MSS.  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  many  of  those  of  the 
fourth,  named  in  the  first  verse  neither  Ephesus  nor  any  other  place. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  the  two  most  ancient  Codices  have  the  super 
scription  "  To  the  Ephesians,"  and  as  in  the  Peshito  version  and 
in  the  Canon  of  Muratori  it  is  supposed  to  be  addressed  to  the 
Ephesians,  the  mass  of  the  Greek  MSS.  in  the  earliest  centuries 
must  have  had  this  superscription,  and  doubtless  from  the  super 
scription  in  the  course  of  time  Ephesus  was  inserted  in  the  first  verse 
of  the  Epistle.  It  is  also  quoted  by  the  ancient  fathers  as  the  Epis 
tle  to  the  Ephesians. 

But  the  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  supposing  the  Epistle  to  have 
been  written  especially  to  the  Ephesians  lies  in  the  absence  of  any 
reference  to  Paul's  having  laboured  among  them,  and  in  the  statements 
of  the  writer :  "  Wherefore  I  also,  after  I  heard  of  your  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  love  to  all  the  saints,  cease  not  to  give  thanks  for  you," 
etc.  (chap,  i,  15);  and  "If  you  have  heard  of  the  dispensation  of 
the  grace  of  God  which  is  given  me  to  you-ward  "  (chap  iii,  2).  It 
is  difficult  to  see  how  this  language  is  consistent  with  Paul's  having 
preached  the  gospel  among  the  Ephesians  for  more  than  two  years 
previous  to  his  writing.  In  his  Epistles  addressed  to  the  Corin 
thians,  Galatians,  Philippians,  and  Thessalonians,  he  refers  to  his 
having  preached  to  them. 

But  as  Marcion's  copies  had  the  inscription  "  To  the  Laodiceans," 
The  super-scrip-  an^  as  Sk  Paul  m  tne  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  gives  a 
tion  "TO  the  charge  not  only  that  the  Epistle  should  be  read  in  the 
^1C6ancieit  Church  of  the  Laodiceans,  but  also  that  the  Epistle  from 
copies.  the  latter  should  be  read  by  the  Colossians,  the  Epistle 

to  the  Laodiceans  must  be  Paul's  Epistle  addressed  to  them,  and 
which  was  to  be  brought  from  them.  No  other  explanation  seems 
admissible.  Now,  this  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  must  have  been  an 
important  one,  otherwise  the  apostle  would  not  have  ordered  it  to  be 
read  in  the  Church  of  the  Colossians.  Laodicea  was  the  most  im 
portant  city  in  that  region,  and  Colossse  was  comparatively  small, 
and  it  is,  accordingly,  difficult  to  see  how  the  Epistle  to  this  Church 
should  have  been  allowed  to  perish,  while  that  to  the  unimportant 
Colossae  should  have  come  down  to  us.  Even  Paul's  Epistle  to 
Philemon,  consisting  of  a  single  chapter,  has  been  preserved,  We 
do  not  know  that  any  Epistle  of  Paul's  to  any  Church  or  important 
individual  Christian  ever  perished,  except  one  written  to  the  Corin 
thians  on  some  matter  which,  in  all  probability,  was  so  completely 
covered  by  the  two  existing  Epistles  as  to  render  it  useless  (i  Cor. 

v,9). 

There  is  a  striking  resemblance  between  this  Epistle  and  that  tc 


OF   THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  G65 

che  Colossians,  and  it  is  very  likely  that  the  condition  of  the 
Chinches  in  Laodicea  and  Colossae  was  very  similar,  as  they  were 
not  more  than  twelve  miles  apart,  and  a  quite  close  connexion  seems, 
from  what  Paul  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  to  have  existed 
oetween  them  (chaps,  ii,  i  ;  iv,  16). 

But  if  the  Epistle  had  been  sent  especially  to  the  Laodiceans,  it  Is 
not  easy  to  see  how  the  inscription  "  To  the  Ephesians  "  should  have 
been  so  general  in  the  ancient  Church,  and  why  the*  apostle  did  not 
insert  the  name  "  Laodicea  "  or  "  Laodiceans  "  in  the  text,  just  as  he 
has  inserted  the  name  of  the  Churches  addressed  in  his  other  Epis 
tles.  Archbishop  Usher  suggested  that  the  Epistle  is  Thlg  E  lgtle 
encyclical,  and  that  it  was  directed  to  several  Churches  in  most  probably 
Asia  Minor;  that  for  this  reason  the  place  for  the  name  encyc 
of  those  addressed  was  left  vacant,  to  be  rilled  up  by  the  different 
Churches  in  which  it  was  read.  This  is  very  probable,  and  implies 
that  Tychicus,  with  whom  the  Epistle  was  sent,  had  several  copies 
with  him,  or  that  copies  were  made  at  Ephesus,  through  which  Tychi 
cus  would  naturally  pass  on  his  way  to  Laodicea  and  Colossae.  But, 
then,  in  speaking  of  the  Epistle,  to  whom  would  the  early  Churches 
and  writers  say  it  was  sent  ?  Most  naturally,  to  the  chief  city  of  all 
that  region,  Ephesus.  Paul's  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is 
addressed  to  "  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  with  all  the 
saints  which  are  in  all  Achaia."  Notwithstanding  this,  the  Epistle  is 
always  spoken  of  as  addressed  to  the  Corinthians.  The  Ephesians 
would  naturally  put  their  own  name  at  the  head  of  the  Epistle,  and 
from  this  great  city  numerous  copies  would  be  spread  over  the  Chris 
tian  world,  bearing  the  inscription  "  To  the  Ephesians."  As  we  have 
already  said,  the  name  Ephesus  in  the  course  of  time  passed  from  the 
superscription  into  the  text. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  copies  of  this  Epistle  which  Mar- 

c.ion  had  were  inscribed  "  To  the  Laodiceans."     Now,  as   T 

Probable    orl- 

Marcion  was  of  Sinope  in  Pontus,  a  city  a  hundred  miles  gin  of  Hard- 
nearer  to  Laodicea,  a  large  city,  than  to  Ephesus,  it  is  ° 
very  probable  that  his  copies  came  originally  from  the  former  city, 
to  which  a  copy  had  been  brought  by  Tychicus,  and  in  this  way  they 
had  the  inscription  To  the  Laodiceans.  It  also  appears  that  among 
the  heretics  in  general,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Epistle  bore  the  title, 
"  To  the  Laodiceans."  Hug,  Olshausen,  Neander,  and  Bleek,  regard 
the  Epistle  as  encyclical.  It  was  not  originally  intended  for  a  very 
wide  district,  as  the  apostle  states  that  Tychicus,  who  was  sent  with 
this  Epistle  and  that  to  the  Colossians,  will  give  the  readers  of  the 
Epistle  information  respecting  him.  The  encyclical  character  of  the 
Epistle  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  no  persons  in  an}r  particular  Church 


686  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

are  mentioned,  just  as  in  the  general  Epistle  "To  the  Churches  of 
Galatia."     It  is  evidently  addressed  to  Gentile  Christians. 

THE   PLACE   AND    TIME   OF    ITS    COMPOSITION. 

It  appears  from  chaps,  iii,  i ;  vi,  20,  that  Paul  was  a  prisoner 
written  when  when  he  wrote  this  Epistle,  and  it  is  highly  probable  that 
Pauiwasaprfs-  it  was  written  about  the  same  time  as  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  as  there  is  a  striking  similarity  between  the 
two.  Neander  well  observes  :  "  Let  us  remember  that  Paul,  when 
he  wrote  this  Epistle,  was  still  full  of  those  thoughts  and  contempla 
tions  which  occupied  his  mind  when  he  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians ;  thus  we  can  account  for  those  points  of  resemblance  in 
the  second,  which  was  written  immediately  after  the  first.  And 
hence  it  is  also  evident  that  of  these  two,  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos 
sians  was  written  first,  for  the  apostle's  thoughts  there  exhibit  them 
selves  in  their  original  formation  and  connexion,  as  they  were  called 
forth  by  his  opposition  to  that  sect  whose  sentiments  and  practices 
he  combats  in  that  Epistle." l  Now,  it  appears  from  internal  evidence 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  was  written  at  Rome  during  Paul's 
first  imprisonment  about  A.  D.  63,  so  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  was  written  at  the  same  place  and  about  the  same  time. 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  thanks  God  for  the  privileges  enjoyed  in  the  Gospel 
through  the  divine  predestination,  and  declares  that  he  ever  gives 
thanks  and  prays  for  those  to  whom  he  writes,  that  God  may  enable 
them  to  see  the  riches  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  greatness  of  its  power 
as  displayed  in  God's  raising  Christ  from  the  dead  and  exalting  him 
to  heaven  (chap.  i).  He  reminds  them  of  what  they  once  were,  when 
dead  in  sins,  but  now  he  declares  they  have  been  saved  by  grace 
through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  our  peace,  and  has  broken  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  that 
they  are  no  longer  strangers,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints.  He 
declares  that  a  dispensation  of  the  gospel  has  been  committed  to 
him,  1o  whom  it  was  revealed  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow- 
heirs  and  partakers  of  the  blessings  of  the  gospel,  which  it  is  his 
mission  to  preach  among  the  Gentiles.  He  prays  that  they  may  be 
fully  established  in  grace,  and  be  enabled  to  know  fully  the  love,  and 
lo  be  filled  with  the  fullness,  of  God  (chaps,  ii,  iii). 

He  exhorts  them  to  walk  worthy  of  their  high  vocation,  in  hu 
mility,  love,  and  unity,  and  speaks  of  the  various  officers  in  the 
Church  appointed  by  Christ  for  its  edification  and  unity.  He 

1  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  329,  Ryland's  Translation. 


OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  667 

exhorts  them  to  live  not  as  other  Gentiles,  in  blindness  and  lust,  but 
to  put  on  the  new  man  of  righteousness  and  holiness;  to  be  truthful, 
angry  without  sin,  honest,  chaste  in  conversation  ;  to  lay  aside  all  bit 
terness,  anger,  and  evil  speaking,  and  to  walk  in  love,  and  purity  of 
life,  redeeming  the  time  ;  to  be  sober,  to  praise  God  in  sacred  songs, 
and  to  be  thankful.  He  illustrates  the  relation  existing  between 
husbands  and  wives  by  that  which  exists  between  Christ  and  his 
Church,  describes  the  mutual  duties  of  parents  and  children,  of  serv 
ants  and  masters,  and  exhorts  the  saints  to  put  on  the  whole  armor 
of  God,  which  he  describes,  that  they  may  master  their  spiritual 
foes.  He  asks  their  prayers  for  him  in  his  bonds,  and  informs  them 
that  he  has  sent  Tychicus,  who  will  give  them  information  respecting 
his  affairs,  and  closes  by  invoking  upon  them  the  divine  blessing 
(chaps,  iv-vi). 

THE    GENUINENESS    OF   THIS   EPISTLE. 

It  was  never  doubted  by  the  Ancient  Church  that  this  Epistle  was 
written  by  Paul.  It  is  used  by  Polycarp  in  his  Epistle  -me  genuine- 
to  the  Philippians,1  is  quoted  as  Paul's  Epistle  by  Ire-  ^gof  Ephe' 
naeus,3  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,8  by  Tertullian,4  and  is  edged  by  an~ 
attributed  to  Paul  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  and  in  the  clent  Church- 
Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  was  received  by  Marcion  under  the  title 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans.5  It  was  quoted  by  Basilides8 
(about  A.  D.  1  25),  and  by  Valentinus  7  (about  A.  D.  140).  Irenaeus  af 
firms  that  the  Valentinians  "  say  :  Paul  very  evidently  has  often 
named  these  ^Eons,  and  has  also  observed  their  order,  speaking  as 
follows:  'Throughout  all  ages,  world  without  end'"8  (Ephesians 
iii,  21). 

But  notwithstanding  the  universal  reception  of  this  Epistle  as 
Paul's  in  the  ancient  Church  as  far  back  as  the  beginning  Modern  doubtg 
of  the  second  century  at  least,  its  genuineness  has  been  of  its  genuine- 
assailed  by  a  few  critics  in  quite  recent  times.    Schleier-  n 
macher,  in  his  lectures,  first  expressed  a  doubt  upon  this  point,  by 


1  "  By  grace  ye  are  saved"  (x^-ptri  iare  ffeouapevoi),  sec.  I,  the  exact  language  of 
Ephtsians  ii,  5.  In  sec.  12  Ephes.  iv,  26  is  quoted  as  holy  scripture. 

'Lib.  ii,  cap.  ii,  6  ;  lib.  v,  cap.  ii,  3. 

'Cohortatio  ad  Gentes,  cap.  ix.  In  Strom.,  lib.  iv,  cap.  viii,  he  quotes  it  as  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  *  Adversus  Marcionem,  v,  cap.  xi,  xvii,  xviii. 

'Ibid.,  cap.  xvii. 

*  ''He  (Basilides)  says,  as  it  is  written  :  '  By  revelation  the  mystery  was  made  known 
to  me.'"  —  In  Hippolytus,  Refut.  Omnium  Haer.,  vii,  26.  The  exact  language  in 
Greek  of  Ephes,  iii,  3.  *  Ibid.,  vi,  ii,  34. 

•Contra  Hzereses,  lib.  i,  cap.  iii,  I.  They  found  the  ^Fons  in  Atuvej-,  "  aget"  of 
the  apostle. 


668  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDV 

conjecturing  that  a  companion  of  Paul  wrote  it  accoiding  to  his 
suggestions.  After  this  De  Wette  expressed  his  doubts  respecting  its 
genuineness  ;  and  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament  he  gives  great  emphasis  to  them.  First  of  all,  he  regards 
this  Epistle  as  written  in  imitation  of  that  to  the  Colossians,  and 
thinks  it  unworthy  of  an  apostle  to  copy  himself.  He  remarks  :  "  In 
comparison  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  and  other  Epistles  of 
Paul,  the  style  is  not  Pauline,  as  it  is  verbose,  poor  in  thought,  and 
too  loose,  being  overloaded  with  parentheses  and  appositions  which 
destroy  the  connexion.  There  are  also  departures  from  his  style  in 
words  and  expressions,  as  well  as  many  things  in  thoughts,  dogmas, 
and  method.  Strongly,  indeed,  against  these  grounds  of  doubt 
stands  the  recognition  of  this  Epistle  by  the  Church,  as  well  as  the 
opposition  of  most  biblical  critics.  Moreover,  though  not  written 
by  the  apostle  himself,  yet  by  a  gifted  disciple  of  his,  it  still  belongs 
to  the  apostolic  age."  l  The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  is  denied 
by  Schwegler,  Baur,  Ewald,  and  Hilgenfeld.11  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld 
place  it  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century;  Ewald  supposes  it 
was  written  by  a  disciple  of  Paul  upon  the  basis  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  between  A.  D.  75  and  80.  Mangold  observes  that,  since 
"  it  is  impossible  to  withdraw  one's  self  from  the  full  impression  of 
the  Pauline  spirit  which  speaks  from  both  Epistles  (Ephesians  and 
Colossians),  recently  on  this  ground  Reuss,  Klopper,  Schenkel,  and 
Hofmann  have  defended  the  genuineness  of  both  Epistles."  ! 

There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  from  the  very  early  testimonies 
Modem  doubts  to  this  Epistle  that  it  was  written  in  the  first  century, 
considered.  j^cr  can  tnere  be  anv  reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  writ 
ten  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  Can  we  believe  that  a  disciple  of  his  could 
have  written  such  a  composition,  exhibiting  the  power,  grasp,  and 
peculiarities  of  this  apostle  ?  Or,  if  he  had  been  able,  that  he  would 
have  so  far  forgotten  his  duty  to  the  apostle,  to  truth,  and  to  God, 
as  to  forge  it  in  the  name  of  this  great  teacher  of  the  Gentiles  ?  And 
what  could  be  the  object  of  such  a  forgery?  So  far  as  the  setting 
forth  of  doctrines,  or  any  polemic  purpose,  is  concerned,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  would  have  answered  it.  Neander  well  remarks: 
"  The  similarity  of  the  two  Epistles  (the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
and  the  so-called  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians)  is  of  such  a  kind,  that  we 
see  in  it  the  work  of  the  same  author,  and  not  an  imitation  by  another 
hand."4 

Einleitung,  edited  by  Messner  and  Liinemann,  Berlin,  1860,  pp.  318,  319. 

*  Hilgenfeld  places  it  not  long  before  A.  D.  140.    Einleitung,  p.  680.    Leipzig,  1875 

'Additions  to  Bleek's  Einleitung,  p.  535.     Berlin,  1875. 

4  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  329,  Ryland's  translation. 


OF   THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  669 

The  words  which  De  Wette  gives  as  not  Pauline,  upon  examina 
tion,  are  found  void  of  any  special  significance,  and  in  8trlklnj?  Paul. 
some  instances  his  list  is  absolutely  erroneous.  On  ine  words  and 
the  other  hand,  we  often  find  words  in  the  Ephesians 


some  of  which  never,  and  others  rarely,  occur  except  in  the  recog 
nized  writings  of  Paul.  In  chap,  vi,  20  Paul,  speaking  of  the  Gospel, 
says  :  "  For  which  I  am  an  ambassador,"  etc.,  and  in  2  Cor.  v,  20, 
"We  are  ambassadors  for  Christ."  The  word  Trpeff/tevw,  to  be  an  am 
bassador^  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Ephesians 
v,  8  we  ha-\e  "children  of  light"  (reKva  0o>TOc)  ;  and  in  i  Thess. 
v,  5  "sons  of  light"  (viol  0wroc),  and  in  Rom.  xiii,  12  "armour  of 
light  "  (TO,  onha  rov  0o)roc).  It  is  easy  to  see  that  such  phrases  as 
these  show  the  same  writer.  The  saints  are  nowhere  else  called  "  the 
children  "  or  "  sons  of  light,"  with  the  exception  of  Luke  xvi,  8,  and 
John  xii,  36.  npoero^d^a),  to  prepare  before  hand,  is  found  only  in  Rom. 
ix,  23,  and  in  Ephesians  ii,  10.  'Avegixviaorog,  unsearchable,  is  found 
only  in  Romans  xi,  33,  and  in  Ephesians  iii,  8.  'AvaKEtyahaioofjiai,  to 
sum  up,  to  bring  together,  is  found  only  in  Romans  xiii,  9,  and  in 
Ephesians  i,  10.  ITpocraywy^,  access,  occurs  only  in  Romans  v,  2, 
Ephesians  ii,  18,  and  iii,  12.  'T7T£(>j3a/l/tu>,  to  surpass,  is  found  only  in 
2  Cor.  iii,  10;  ix,  14,  and  in  Ephesians  i,  19;  ii,  7  ;  iii,  19.  Ilwpwaic, 
blindness,  hardness  of  heart,  is  found  in  Rom.  xi,  25,  and  in  Ephesians 
iv,  18;  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  Mark  iii,  5.  AA?/o 
t9evw,  to  speak  the  truth,  occurs  only  in  Galatians  iv,  16,  and  in  Eph. 
iv,  15.  Appaj3o>i>  (Heb.  \^~ty),  pledge,  earnest,  is  found  only  in  2  Cor. 
i,  22;  v,  5,  and  in  Ephesians  i,  14.  napopy/^w,  to  make  angry,  is 
found  only  in  Rom.  x,  19,  and  in  Ephesians  vi,  4.  MeTadidufii,  to 
impart,  occurs  in  Rom.  i,  n  ;  xii,  8;  i  Thess.  ii,  8;  and  in  Eph. 
iv,  28;  nowhere  else  except  in  Luke  iii,  ii.  "Tiodeaia,  adoption, 
Ephesians  i,  5,  is  found  nowhere  else  except  in  Romans  and  Gala 
tians.  npoopi^w,  to  determine  before  hand,  is  found  in  Ephesians  i, 
5,  ii  ;  Rom.  viii,  29,  30  ;  i  Cor.  ii,  7  ;  elsewhere  only  in  Acts  iv,  28. 
Mveiav  iroiov^ai,  to  make  mention  of,  occurs  only  in  Rom.  i,  9  ;  i  Thess. 
i,  2  ;  Phil.  4,  and  in  Ephesians  i,  16.  H^oi^aiq,  confidence,  is  found 
only  in  2  Corinthians,  Philippians  iii,  4,  and  Ephesians  iii,  12.  'Trrep 
EK-repioaov,  superabundantly,  found  only  in  i  Thess.  iii,  10  ;  v,  13,  and  in 
Ephesians  iii,  20.  Evox5i'a,  sweet  smell,  is  found  only  in  2  Corinthians 
ii,  15  ;  Philippians  iv,  18,  and  in  Ephesians  v,  2.  In  Acts  xxviii,  20, 
Paul  speaks  at  Rome  of  being  bound  with  a  single  chain  (rr\v  dhvatv 
ravrTjv^  this  chain);  and  in  Ephesians  vi,  20,  he  says,  "  I  am  an  am 
bassador  in  a  chain  (kv  aXvaei).  Everywhere  else  in  the  New  Testa 
ment,  except  in  2  Tim.  i,  16,  and  in  Rev.  xx,  i,  the  plural,  aXvoEi$, 
chains,  is  used.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  the  circumstances 


6:0  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

of  the  case  point  to  the  composition  of  this  Epistle  daring  the  apos. 
tie's  first  imprisonment  at  Rome.  The  examples  we  have  given  do 
not,  however,  exhaust  the  subject. 

It  must  also  be  observed  that  the  Epistle  contains  Hebraisms,  just 
Hebraisms  in  as  we  would  expect  from  Paul.  As  examples,  we  have, 
tMs  Epistle.  T8Kva  6py?fc  ,  children  of  wrath,  chap,  ii,  3  ;  reicva  0&)r(ff, 
children  of  light,  chap,  v,  8  ;  viol  rfj^  anei&eias,  sons  of  disobedience, 
chap,  ii,  2  ;  vloi  r&v  dvtfpwTrwv,  sons  of  men,  chap,  iii,  5.  We  have 
also  seen  that  appafi&v  (Heb.  \\^y),  pledge,  is  used  in  chap,  i,  14. 

De  Wette  notices,  as  not  Pauline,  the  omission  of  a  verb  of  com 
mand  before  Iva  (froprjrai  rov  avdga,  that  she  reverence  her  husband  (chap. 
v>  33)  J  but  a  similar  omission  occurs  before  Iva  nai  kv  ravrq,  K.  r.  A., 
that  ye  abound  in  this  grace  also  (2  Cor.  viii,  7).  Also,  Iva,  followed 
by  the  optative  mood,  De  Wette  thinks  not  Pauline.  But  there  is 
only  one  '  passage  of  this  kind  in  the  Ephesians  (chap,  i,  17),  and  in 
this  the  optative  is  properly  used  after  a  prayer,  °lva  (that,  in  order 
thai]  is  followed  in  every  other  instance,  twenty-two  times  in  Ephe 
sians,  by  the  subjunctive. 

In  Ephesians  iv,  27  and  vi,  ii,  the  arch-enemy  of  mankind  is 
called  the  Devil,  (AmjSoAoc)  ;  but  in  Romans,  First  and  Second 
Corinthians,  First  and  Second  Thessalonians,  he  is  called  Satan 
(Iiaravdtf),  eight  times  in  all.  In  First  Timothy  both  words  are 
used,  which  is  the  usage  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John.  In  Second 
Timothy  and  Titus,  Diabolos,  devil,  alone  occurs.  Satan  is  a  He 
brew  word  meaning  adversary,  and  was  doubtless  the  word  Paul 
would  use  in  addressing  his  countrymen  ;  but  in  addressing  Gentiles, 
he  would  naturally  use  Diabolos,2  a  Greek  word  meaning  slanderer. 
Now,  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  addressed  to  Gentiles,  it  was 
highly  proper  that  the  latter  word  should  be  employed. 

This  Epistle  is  not  simply  an  elaboration  of  that  to  the  Colossians  ; 
but  while  most  of  its  ideas  and  words  are  such  as  are  found  in  that 
and  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul,  they  are  not  slavishly  followed,  and 
new  thoughts  and  different  words  are  introduced  as  occasion  de 
mands.  All  this  bespeaks  Paul  as  its  author. 

Hilgenfeld  8  regards  the  expressions  "  fulness  of  time  "  (-rrA^pWjwi 
TWV  Acatpwv),  and  the  fulness  (TrATjpw/ja)  of  him  who  filleth  all  in  all  " 
(i,  10,  23),  as  belonging  to  the  period  of  Gnosticism.  But  how  does 
Hilgenfeld  know  that  Gnosticism  had  no  existence  as  early  as  A.  D. 
63  or  64?  But  what  has  the  "  fulness  "  (nkTJptofjta)  ,  of  which  Paul 


'In  the  other  passage  noticed  by  De  Wette,  both  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles 
have  introduced  the  subjunctive  mood,  d&  (chap,  iii,  16),  from  the  best  MSS. 

"Diabolos  is  the  Greek  translation  of  Satan  in  various  passages  of  the  LXX  ;  as 
Zcch.  iii,  i,  a;  Job  i,  6,  7,  12.  'EinlHtung,  p.  679 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  671 

speaks,  to  do  with  the  Pleroma  (fulness)  of  the  Gnostics  ?  Paul,  in 
Epistles  which  Hilgenfeld  acknowledges  to  be  his,  speaks  of  the 
"  fulness  (pleroma)  of  time,"  Gal.  iv,  4 ;  "  fulness  (pleroma)  of  the 
Gentiles,  (Romans  xi,  25)  ;  "  fulness  of  the  law  "  (chap,  xiii,  10). 
Why  might  he  not  also  speak  of  the  fulness  of  God  as  he  does  in 
Colossians  (chap,  ii,  9),  and  as  John  speaks  of  the  fulness  (pleroma) 
of  Christ  (John  i,  16)  ? 

There  is  a  peculiarity  of  Paul,  noticed  by  the  acute  Paley,1  a  spe 
cies  of  digression  which  he  calls  "going  off  at  a  word"  Ch&T&cterlstlo 
and  which  he  adduces  as  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  digressions  in 
of  this  Epistle.  In  2  Corinthians  ii,  14  Paul  speaks  of  tmsEPi8tle- 
God's  manifesting  "  the  savour  of  his  knowledge."  This  leads  him 
to  comment  on  "savour."  In  2  Cor.  iii,  i  he  asks:  "Do  we  need 
epistles  of  commendation  to  you  ?  "  He  then  starts  off  to  discuss 
"living  epistles."  In  2  Cor.  iii,  13  he  says,  Moses  "put  a  vail  over 
his  face."  This  leads  him  to  a  discussion  of  the  blindness  of  the 
Israelites.  In  accordance  with  this  peculiarity,  we  find  the  apostle  in 
Ephesians  iv,  8  saying :  "  When  he  ascended  up  on  high,  he  led 
captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men."  This  leads  him  to 
speak  immediately  of  Christ's  ascension  and  descension.  In  chap. 
v,  13,  speaking  of  things  "  made  manifest  by  the  light"  he  starts  off  at 
light  into  a  digression.  Upon  the  whole,  we  may  safely  rest  in  the 
belief  of  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    PHILIPPIANS. 

THE  PERSONS  ADDRESSED. 

pHILIPPI,  an  important  city  of  Macedonia,  was  named  after  Phil- 
1  ip,  the  father  of  Alexander  the  Great.  It  was  anciently  called  Cre- 
nides,8  "Place  of  Fountains,"  "from  the  numerous  streams  in  which 
the  Angites  has  its  source."  The  old  city  was  enlarged  by  Philip 
after  the  capture  of  Amphipolis,  Pydna,  and  Potidaea,  and  fortified 
to  protect  his  frontier  against  the  Thracian  mountaineers.'  *  The 
haven  of  the  town  was  Neapolis,  situated  about  ten  miles  distant,  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Angites  on  the  Thracian  sea.  It  was  at  this  place 
that  Paul  landed  on  his  way  to  Philippi  (Acts  xvi,  n).  Augustus 
presented  Philippi  with  the  privileges  of  a  colony,  with  the  name 
"  Col.  Jul.  Aug.  Philip." 

1  In  his  Horae  Paulinae.          'Strabo,  vii,  331.         "Smith's  Diet  of  Class,  Geog. 


672  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

About  A.  D.  52  Paul  and  Silas  visited  this  place  and  preached  the 
cf  Paul's  SosPe^  Among  their  converts  was  Lydia.  Paul  having 
Philip-  cast  the  spirit  of  divination  out  of  a  Pythoness,  and  her 
masters  seeing  that  there  was  no  further  hope  of  gain 
from  her  profession,  brought  the  apostle  and  Silas  before  the  magis 
trates,  as  being  troublesome  persons.  At  the  command  of  these 
officers,  Paul  and  Silas  were  severely  beaten,  thrust  into  the  inner 
prison,  and  their  feet  made  fast  in  the  stocks.  An  earthquake  in 
the  night  shook  the  foundations  of  the  building,  and  immediately  all 
the  doors  were  opened,  and  every  one's  bands  loosed.  The  keeper 
of  the  prison  was  converted  and  baptized.  The  officers,  learning 
that  Paul  and  Silas  were  Romans,  became  alarmed,  and  begged  them 
to  leave.  Soon  after  this  Paul  and  Silas  left  the  city  for  Amphipolis 
(Acts  xvi,  12-40).  The  Philippian  Church  was  composed  almost 
entirely  of  Gentile  Christians.  It  seems  that  no  synagogue  had  been 
established  there,  as  there  is  mention  merely  of  an  oratory  (Trpoaev^) 
on  the  river  side  (Acts  xvi,  13). 

THE  PLACE  AND  TIME  OF  COMPOSITION. 

It  is  clear  from  several  passages  in  the  Epistle  that  it  was  written 
written durin  ^y  Paul  when  imprisoned  in  Rome.  In  chap,  i,  7  he 
Paul's  impris-  speaks  of  being  in  bonds;  and  in  chap,  i,  13  he  says: 
"  So  that  my  bonds  in  Christ  have  become  manifest  in 
the  whole  palace,  and  all  other  places."  In  chap,  iv,  2^  he  says: 
"  All  the  saints  salute  you,  but  especially  they  who  are  of  Caesar's 
household." 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  find  but  two  long  imprisonments 
of  Paul :  the  one  at  Caesarea  (Acts  xxiii,  33-xxvi) ,  and  the  other  a* 
Rome  (Acts  xxviii,  20-30).  Now  the  salutation  from  "Caesar's 
household  "  clearly  shows  that  he  was  imprisoned  at  Rome,  and  not 
at  Caesarea,  when  he  wrote  the  Epistle. 

It  would  appear  also  from  his  language  (chap,  i,  13)  that  Paul  had 
already  been  in  Rome  a  considerable  time,  and  from  chap,  ii,  23,  24, 
that  he  wrote  near  the  end  of  his  two  years'  confinement,  as  he 
expects  a  decision  of  his  case  soon,  and  trusts  that  he  will  shortly 
come  to  the  Philippians.  We  may,  therefore,  conclude  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  at  Rome  near  the  end  of  his  first J  imprisonment 
in  that  city,  about  A.  D.  63. 

1  It  does  not  suit  the  facts  in  the  case  tc  suppose  that  the  Epistle  was  written  when 
Paul  was  brought  before  Nero  the  second  time.  Then  he  was  left  alone,  and  when 
he  wrote  Second  Timothy,  expecting  to  depart  from  the  world  soon,  only  Luke  was 
with  him  (chap,  iv,  n,  16).  But  when  he  wrote  the  Philippians  Timothy  was  with 
him  (Phil,  i,  i).  Besides,  he  expected  soon  to  be  released  (Phil,  ii,  24). 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  GT'l 


CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  expresses  his  deep  affection  for  the  Philippian?,  hia 
joy  in  their  fellowship,  and  his  confidence  that  God  will  synopsis  cf 
complete  the  work  begun  in  them.  He  informs  them  Contenw- 
that  his  imprisonment  has  contributed  to  the  progress  of  the  gospel, 
and  led  others  to  preach  Christ.  He  prays  that  Christ  may  be  mag 
nified  whether  by  his  life  or  death,  and  expresses  a  desire  to  depart 
and  be  with  Christ,  which  is  better  for  himself,  but  not  expedient  for 
them,  and  he  therefore  concludes  that  he  will  still  live.  He  exhorts 
them  to  live  in  accordance  with  the  gospel,  and  teaches  them.  hu 
mility  by  the  example  of  the  Saviour,  who,  though  equal  with  God, 
assumed  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  submitted  to  the  death  of  the 
cross.  He  exhorts  them  to  persevere  in  the  work  of  their  salvation, 
and  to  be  blameless  in  their  lives.  He  hopes  to  be  able  to  send 
Timothy  to  them  shortly,  and  himself  to  come  soon.  He  tells  them 
that  he  had  sent  Epaphroditus,  who  had  been  dangerously  sick,  and  he 
exhorts  them  to  receive  him  with  kindness  and  honour  (chaps,  i,  ii). 

He  warns  them  to  beware  of  evil  doers  and  of  the  concision  (cir 
cumcision  thus  disparagingly  called),  affirming  that  he  himself  is  a 
genuine  Jew,  but  counts  all  his  Jewish  privileges  as  naught  for  the 
knowledge  of  Christ,  and  is  pressing  forward  to  the  goal  of  the 
Christian  course,  the  attainment  of  a  glorified  state  with  Christ.  He 
exhorts  them  to  steadfastness  in  the  Lord,  to  rejoice,  to  make  their 
wants  known  by  prayer,  and  to  meditate  upon  all  that  is  lovely  and 
excellent,  and  to  hold  fast  what  they  have  received.  He  expresses  his 
joy  that  they  are  again  mindful  of  him  in  his  affliction,  although  they 
lacked  opportunity  to  contribute  of  their  means.  He  states,  how 
ever,  that  he  has  learned  to  accommodate  himself  to  circumstances. 
He  refers  to  the  fact  that  more  than  once  when  he  was  in  Thessa- 
lonica  they  ministered  to  his  necessities.  He  acknowledges  the 
receipt  of  gifts  from  them  through  Epaphroditus,  and  closes  with 
salutations  (chaps,  iii,  iv).  The  reception  of  gifts  from  the  Philip- 
pians  was  the  occasion  of  the  writing  of  the  Epistle. 

GENUINENESS    OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

This  Epistle  was  universally  received  by  the  ancient  Church  as 
the   writing   of  Paul.     Polycarp,  in  his  Epistle  to  the   Quotations 
Philippians,  says  that  Paul,  being  absent  from  them,  wrote  from  the  Epi*. 
to  them.1    Chap,  ii,  6  of  Philippians  is  quoted  in  the  Epis-   thersanVeariy 
tie  of  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna  to  those  of 


1  He  uses  kniOTohal  (plural)  ;  but  the  plural  is  sometimes  used  for  the  singular, 
?k  Epistle,  sec.  3. 
VOL.  I.  —  43 


674  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

Asia  Minor1  (about  A.  D.  177).  It  is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Irenseus,1 
by  Clement 8  of  Alexandria,  by  Tertullian,4  and  by  the  heretic  Mar- 
cion.  It  is  found  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  the  Canon 
of  Muratori.  Its  genuineness  has  been  assailed  by  Baur,  Schwegler, 
and  Hitzig.  De  Wette  remarks :  "  The  genuineness  of  this  Epistle 
seems  to  be  raised  above  all  doubt."6  Even  Hilgenfeld,  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  defends  it.  "The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians,"  says  he,  "  has  therefore  not  been  really  refuted. 
In  this  Epistle  we  have  the  dying  song  (schwanengesang,  swan-song] 
of  Paul."8  It  is  so  fully  attested,  and  bears  such  strong  internal 
evidence  of  being  the  writing  of  Paul,  that  it  needs  no  defense.  The 
Epistle  was  conveyed  to  the  Philippians  by  Epaphroditus  (chap,  ii, 
28,  29). 


C 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS. 
THE    PERSONS    ADDRESSED. 

OLOSS^E  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus  7  as  a  large  city  of  Phrygia 
The  younger  Cyrus  halted  here  seven  days  when  on  the  ex- 
Notices  of  Co-  pedition  against  his  brother  Artaxerxes,  and  it  is  de- 
lossae.  scribed  by  Xenophon  as  large  and  prosperous.8  It  was 

situated  on  the  Lycus,  a  branch  of  the  Maeander,  about  twelve  miles 
east  of  Laodicea.  About  the  time  of  Christ  it  had  become  an  un 
important  town." 

It  appears  from  chapters  i,  4,  ii,  i,  that  Paul  had  never  visited 
Colossae  ;  at  least,  that  he  did  not  found  the  Church  there.  The 
Colossians  received  the  Gospel  from  Epaphras,  who  is  highly  com 
mended  by  Paul  (chap,  i,  7),  and  was  with  him  when  he  wrote  the 
Epistle.  The  apostle  was  evidently  led  to  write  to  them  by  the 
report  of  their  condition  which  he  had  received  from  Epaphras.  It 
appears  from  the  Epistle  that  they  were  in  danger  of  being  led  away 
by  false  philosophy.  The  Church  in  this  town  was  composed,  ao 
doubt,  almost  exclusively  of  Gentiles. 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  v,  2.  *  Contra  Hsereses,  iv,  cap.  xviii,  4. 

*  Paedag.,  i,  cap.  vi.  *  De  Resurrectione  Carnis,  cap.  xxiii. 

*  Einleitung,  p.  324.  e  Einleitung,  p.  347,  Leipzig,  1875. 
7  vii,  30.               •  Anab.,  i,  cap.  2.  •  Strabo,  xii,  576-578. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  675 


PLACE    AND    TIME    OF    COMPOSITION. 

It  is  clear  from  chapter  iv,  3  that  the  apostle  when  he  wrote  was 
imprisoned,  and  it  seems  from  various  circumstances  that  Wrltten durlnfl 
it  was  his  first  imprisonment  in  Rome.  We  find  Timothy  Paul's  first  im- 
with  him  (ch.  i,  i),  who  was  not  with  him  at  Rome  when  E 
he  was  brought  a  second  time  before  Nero  (2  Tim.  iv,  16) ;  nor  is  if 
likely  that  Timothy  was  with  him  when  he  was  imprisoned  at  Caesarea. 
But  he  was  with  Paul  in  \\\s  first  imprisonment  in  Rome  (Phil,  i,  i). 
When  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  Demas  was  with  him  (chap,  iv,  14)  ;  but 
when  he  was  brought  before  Nero  the  second  time  Demas  forsook 
him  (2  Tim.  iv,  10).  In  the  Epistle  there  are  also  named  Onesimus, 
Aristarchus,  Mark,  Epaphras,  and  Luke  (chap,  iv,  9-14).  When 
Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  there  were  with  him  Onesimus 
(verse  10),  Epaphras,  Mark,  Aristarchus,  Demas,  and  Luke  (verses 
23,  24).  It  is  evident  from  the  preceding  facts  that  this  Epistle  was 
written  about  the  same  time  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  and 
that  to  Philemon.  Now  the  letter  to  the  Philippians  was  written  in 
the  latter  part  of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  in  Rome,  and  the  Epistle 
to  Philemon  shortly  before  Paul's  liberation  from  that  imprisonment, 
as  appears  from  his  direction  to  Philemon  to  prepare  him  a  lodging 
(verse  22).  We  may,  therefore,  conclude  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  was  written  near  the  close  of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  in 
Rome,  about  A.  D.  63.  It  was  sent  to  the  Colossians  by  Tychicus 
(chap,  iv,  7). 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  expresses  the  deep  interest  which  he  feels  in  the 
Colossians  since  he  heard  of  their  faith,  prays  for  their  progress  in 
the  knowledge  of  God,  that  they  may  fully  perform  his  will,  and 
that  they  may  be  supported  by  the  power  of  the  gospel.  He  sets 
forth  the  attributes,  the  prerogatives,  and  the  redeeming  work  of 
Christ,  and  exhorts  them  to  steadfastness.  He  declares  that  a  dis 
pensation  of  the  gospel  is  committed  to  him,  and  that  he  is  labour 
ing  to  perform  its  duties  (chap.  i).  He  expresses  his  deep  anxiety 
for  them,  and  for  others  who  have  not  seen  him,  that  they  may  be 
comforted,  united  in  love,  and  attain  a  full  understanding  of  the 
gospel,  and  be  established  in  it.  He  warns  them  against  being  de 
ceived  by  philosophy,  and  assures  them  that  they  are  complete  in 
Christ,  and  have  obtained  through  him  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  He 
also  warns  them  against  attaching  importance  to  mere  outward  ob 
servances,  and  against  being  beguiled  into  a  mere  human  system  of 
religious  worship  (chap.  ii). 


076  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

He  urges  them  to  set  their  affections  upon  things  above,  to  live  in 
purity,  to  be  humble,  meek,  long-suffering,  and  to  abound  in  love. 
He  gives  directions  to  wives,  husbands,  children,  fathers,  servants, 
and  masters.  He  exhorts  them  to  continue  in  prayer,  and  to  pray 
that  he  may  be  successful  in  preaching  the  gospel,  and  to  conduci 
themselves  with  wisdom  toward  those  without.  He  tells  them  that 
he  has  sent  Tychicus  and  Onesimus,  who  will  inform  them  respect 
ing  his  affairs.  He  sends  salutations,  orders  this  Epistle  to  be  read 
to  the  Church  of  the  Laodiceans,  and  that  theirs  shall  be  read  to 
the  Colossians,  and  sends  a  charge  to  Aristarchus  (chap,  iii,  iv). 

GENUINENESS   OF   THIS   EPISTLE. 

This  Epistle  was  universally  received  by  the  ancient  Church  as  a 
coiossians  re-  wr^ing  °f  tne  Apostle  Paul.  It  was  received  also  by  the 
oeived  by  an-  heretic  Marcion  (about  A.  D.  138)  ;  it  is  used  by  Justin 
rch<  Martyr1  (about  A.  D.  150),  by  Theophilus'  of  Antioch 
(A.  D.  180).  It  is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Irenseus,3  by  Clement4  of 
Alexandria,  and  by  Tertullian.5  It  is  ascribed  to  Paul  in  the  ancient 
Peshito  version  and  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori.  "  The  Epistle,"  says 
I)e  Wette,  "has  always  belonged  to  the  universally  acknowledged 
writings.  Only  in  the  most  recent  time  has  it  been  doubted,  never 
theless,  on  insufficient  grounds."  ' 

The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  has  been  attacked  by  Mayerhoff, 
Attacks  upon  Baur>  Schwegler,  and  Hilgenfeld.7  The  last  critic  thinks 
genuineness  of  it  strange  that  Paul  "should  not  have  personally  known 
tnis  Epistle.  the  church  at  Coloss£e  as  wen  as  tiiat  at  Laodicea  " 

(Col.  i,  4,  8,  9;  ii,  i),  since  he  twice  passed  through  Phrygia  (Acts 
xvi,  6  ;  xviii,  23).  But  Laodicea  and  Colossse  were  in  Southern 
Phrygia,  if  they  were,  indeed,  included  in  that  country  at  all.  North 
ern  Phrygia  was  bounded  on  the  east  by  Galatia,  and  on  the  west  by 
Mysia.  In  Acts  xvi,  6,  7  it  is  stated  that  Paul  and  his  companions 
"were  forbidden  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia, 
after  they  were  come  to  Mysia,  they  assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia  :  but 
the  Spirit  suffered  them  not."  Let  any  one  now  take  Kiepert's  map 
of  the  Roman  empire,  and  he  will  find  that  Paul's  route  was  far  away 
from  Laodicea  and  Colossse.  In  his  second  journey,  it  seems;  he 


•Justin  calls  Christ  "  The  firstborn  of  every  creature"  (Trpororoxof  TrdorjC 
(Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  cap.  85),  the  exact  language  of  Col.  i,  15.      Expressions  of  a 
similar  kind  Justin  uses  in  cap.  84  and  100. 

•Ad  Autolycum,  lib.  ii,  22;  he  calls  Christ  i'The  firstborn  of  every  creature." 

•Contra  Hoereses,  iii,  cap.  14,  i.  'Stromata,  vi,  cap.  viii,  etc. 

*  Adversus  Marciunem,  lib.  v,  cap.  xix.  *  Einleitung,  p.  307. 

'  Einleitung,  659-669,  Leipzig,  1875. 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  677 

followed  the  same  route,  for  the  author  of  Acts  says  he  was  "  strength 
ening  the  disciples"  (Acts  xviii,  23).  But,  according  to  the  New 
Testament  geography,  Asia  and  Phrygia  were  two  separate  districts 
(Acts  ii,  9,  10 ;  xvi,  6,  7)  ;  and  in  the  Apocalypse — which  the  Tubingen 
school  acknowledge  to  be  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John — Laodicea  is 
addressed  as  one  of  the  Churches  of  Asia  (chap,  i,  iv;  iii,  14),  where 
Paul  was  forbidden  to  preach  (Acts  xvi,  6).  Colossae  was  about 
twelve  miles  east  of  Laodicea,  and  an  unimportant  place  ;  and  as 
the  Apostle  Paul  did  not  preach  in  Laodicea  it  is  not  likely  that  he 
preached  at  Colossae.  Hence  the  statement  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  that  the  Churches  of  Laodicea  and  Colossoa  were  person 
ally  unknown  to  the  apostle  (chap,  i,  4,  8,  9 ;  ii,  i),  is  established 
by  independent  proof. 

Hilgenfeld  also  objects  that  the  order  of  the  words,  "  Where 
there  is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew  "  (chap,  iii,  n),  is  not  ac-  migenfeid's 
cording  to  the  usage  of  Paul,  who  puts  Jews  first.  But  objections, 
in  some  of  the  instances  in  which  Paul  puts  the  Jews  first,  the  nature 
of  the  case  demanded  it,  as  the  gospel  was  first  offered  to  the  Jews. 
And  in  almost  any  case  .it  was  natural  for  a  Jew  to  put  his  country- 
men  first.  It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  the  Churches  at 
Rome  and  Corinth,  to  which  the  Epistles  were  addressed  in  which 
Jews  are  named  before  Greeks,  there  were  many  Jews,  while  it  is 
probable  that  there  were  but  few  at  Colossae.  But  in  the  same 
verse  (chap,  iii,  n)  it  is  added  "circumcision  nor  uncircumcision,"the 
first  of  which  refers  to  Jews.  But  further,  in  the  Peshito-Syriac,  it  is 
"Jew  and  Gentile,"  and  in  the  Armenian  and  yEthiopic,  "Jew  nor 
Greek."  It  is  not,  however,  improbable  that  late  in  life,  when  the 
apostle  had  become  accustomed  to  the  Greeks,  and  Christianity  had 
taken  deep  hold  of  them,  he  may  have  put  them  first.  Certainly  one 
word  put  in  a  different  order  from  that  in  which  the  apostle  had 
been  accustomed  to  put  it,  can  furnish  no  proof  of  the  spuriousness 
of  the  Epistle. 

Hilgenfeld  thinks  he  finds  in  the  Epistle  traces  of  Gnosticism, 
which  indicate  a  post-apostolic  age.  But  these  traces  are  merely  im 
aginary.  The  "  fulness  "  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  (chap,  i,  19  ;  ii,  9) 
is  not  the  fulness  (PUroma)  of  the  Gnostics.  In  various  places  in 
his  undisputed  Epistles,  as  has  already  been  shown,  Paul  uses  the 
word  fulness  (Pleroma)  in  reference  to  Jews  (Rom.  xi,  12),  to  Gen 
tiles  (chap,  xi,  25),  the  law  (chap,  xiii,  10),  time  (Gal.  iv,  4).  In  our 
Epistle  the  "fulness  "  refers  to  Christ  (chap,  i,  19),  to  the  Godhead 
(chap,  ii,  9).  In  John's  Gospel  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to 
Christ  (chap,  i,  16). 

There  are  personal  allusions  in  the  Epistle  of  such  a  character 


678  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 


Personal  aiiu-  are  su^cient  of  themselves  to  show  ite  Pauline 

Bionsbypauiin  origin.  It  appears  from  chap,  iv,  12  Epaphras  was  with 
Paul,  and  we  find  Epaphras  also  with  him  when  he  writes 
to  Philemon  (ver.  23).  Onesimus  is  mentioned  in  chap,  iv,  9  as  a  faith 
ful  and  beloved  brother,  and  one  of  the  Colossians.  Archippus  is 
exhorted  to  take  heed  to  the  ministry  which  he  has  received  of  the 
Lord  (chap,  iv,  17).  This  shows  that  Archippus  was  of  Colossae 
Accordingly,  when  the  apostle  writes  to  Philemon  and  Archippus^ 
we  clearly  see  that  the  former  was  also  of  Colossae,  to  which  city 
Onesimus  also  belonged.  In  chap,  iv,  10  we  find  Aristarchus  with 
Paul  ;  and  he  is  with  him  also  in  Philemon  24.  And  it  appears 
trom  Acts  xxvii,  2  that  Aristarchus  went  with  Paul  to  Rome,  where 
he  appears  in  this  Epistle.  In  chap,  iv,  10  Mark  is  called  Barnabas' 
cousin.  Could  we  expect  such  intimate  knowledge  as  this  of  any 
one  after  the  apostolic  age  ?  And  does  not  this  explain  Barnabas' 
predilection  for  Mark  (Acts  xv,  37-39)  ?  Luke  and  Demas  appear 
with  Paul,  both  in  Colossians  iv,  14  and  in  Philemon  24.  Hil- 
genfeld  acknowledges  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  to  be  Paul's,  and  that 
to  the  Colossians  is  so  interwoven  with  it  as  to  show  that  it  must  be 
a  genuine  apostolical  production,  the  coincidences  evidently  being 
undesigned. 

In  the  Epistle  it  is  ordered  that  it  shall  be  read  in  the  Church  of 
Laodicea  after  it  had  been  read  to  the  Colossians  (chap,  iv,  16). 
What  object  could  a  forger  have  to  give  such  an  order  as  this,  unless, 
forsooth,  he  wished  to  hit  upon  the  most  certain  way  of  having  his 
forgery  detected  ?  for  when,  on  this  supposition,  the  Epistle  was  pro 
duced,  forty  or  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle,  it  must 
have  borne  its  spurious  character  upon  its  very  face,  inasmuch  as  it 
had  never  been  read  in  those  Churches. 

The  Epistle  everywhere  bears  the  genuine  Pauline  stamp,  which 
commends  it  to  every  one  whose  mind  is  open  to  truth. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS. 
THE    PERSONS    ADDRESSED. 

O^HESSALONICA  was  beautifully  situated  at  the  head  Of  the  Ther- 

A    maic  gulf,  in  Southern  Macedonia.     The  town  was  at  first  called 

The    city    of  Therme,  from  the  hot  springs  in  that  region.     According 

Thessaionica.     to  Strabo,  it  was  rebuilt  by  Cassander,  and  called  after  his 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  679 

wife,  Thessalonica,  the  daughter  of  Philip.  It  is  called  by  him  the 
metropolis  of  Macedonia.1 

"The  present  appearance  of  the  city,  as  seen  from  the  sea,  is  de 
scribed  by  Leake,  Holland,  and  other  travelers  as  very  imposing. 
It  rises  in  the  form  of  a  crescent  up  the  declivity,  and  is  surrounded 
by  lofty  whitened  walls,  with  towers  at  intervals.  .  .  .  The  port  is  still 
convenient  for  large  ships,  and  the  anchorage  in  front  of  the  town  is 
good.  These  circumstances  in  the  situation  of  Thessalonica  were 
evidently  favorable  for  commanding  the  trade  of  the  Macedonian 
Sea."a  The  population  of  the  modern  city,  Salonica,  is  about  75,000. 

Thessaionica  was  first  visited  by  St.  Paul  about  A.  D.  52.  At 
that  time  it  contained  many  Jews,  who  had  a  synagogue,  in  which 
Paul  for  three  sabbaths  preached  Christ  as  the  Messiah  with  partial 
success.  But  though  the  number  of  Jewish  believers  was  not  large, 
a  great  multitude  of  devout  Greeks  and  many  noble  women  be 
lieved.  But  the  unbelieving  Jews,  moved  with  envy,  created  a 
great  disturbance  in  the  city,  and  the  brethren  sent  away  Paul  and 
Silas  by  night  into  Berea  (Acts  xvii,  1-9).  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the 
mass  of  the  Christians  to  whom  Paul  addressed  his  two  Epistles 
were  Greeks. 

PLACE  AND  TIME  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE. 

As  the  apostle,  on  account  of  the  uproar  in  Thessalonica,  left  the 
brethren  very  suddenly,  and  without  imparting  to  them  written  from 
all  the  instruction  desirable,  and  fearing  that  their  trials  O01111111' 
might  discourage  them,  he  wrote  to  them  this  Epistle  soon  after  his 
departure,  and  on  his  arrival  in  Corinth.  In  the  address  to  the 
Church,  Silvanus  (Silas)  and  Timothy  are  associated  with  the  apostle 
(chap,  i,  i),  which  fact  shows  that  the  Epistle  was  written  after  Silas 
and  Timothy  had  arrived  at  Corinth  from  Macedonia  (Acts  xviii,  5). 
The  manner  of  discussion  and  the  allusions  in  the  Epistle  clearly 
indicate  that  it  was  written  soon  after  Paul's  arrival  in  Corinth,  about 
A.  D.  52. 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  declares  that  he  is  grateful  to  God  on  their  behalf, 
and  that  he  prays  for  them,  remembering  their  devotion  to  Christ. 
He  reminds  them  of  their  election,  which  was  shown  by  the  miracu 
lous  power  that  attended  his  preaching  among  them,  and  how  they 
received  the  word  in  much  affliction,  and  became  an  example  to 
others  of  Christian  faith  and  hope.  He  reminds  them  of  the  shame 
ful  treatment  he  had  received  at  Philippi,  of  the  honest  and  sincere 
manner  in  which  he  had  preached  the  gospel  at  Thessalonica,  of  the 
*vii,  330,  Epit.  21  'Smith's  Classical  Geography. 


680  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

deep  love,  he  bore  them,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had  sup 
ported  himself.  He  calls  to  their  minds  that  the  sufferings  brought 
upon  them  by  their  countrymen  are  similar  to  the  sufferings  of  the 
followers  of  Christ  in  Judea  from  the  Jews. 

He  expresses  his  anxiety  to  see  them,  and  states  that  he  had  sent 
Timothy  from  Athens  to  visit  them,  and  that  he  had  great  joy  when 
he  had  received  from  him  a  favourable  report  of  them.  He  declares 
that  he  ever  prays  to  see  them,  and  that  God  may  cause  them  to 
abound  in  love  and  establish  them  in  holiness.  He  exhorts  them  to 
cultivate  brotherly  love,  and  in  every  respect  to  perform  their  duty; 
not  to  grieve  immoderately  for  the  dead,  since  they  shall  be  raised 
to  a  glorious  resurrection  at  the  coming  of  Christ,  who  will  appear 
suddenly.  He  accordingly  exhorts  them  to  be  watchful,  and  also  to 
hold  in  honour  their  spiritual  teachers,  and  closes  by  giving  them 
various  admonitions. 

THE   GENUINENESS    OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

This  Epistle  was  universally  received  as  the  writing  of  Paul  by  the 
Quoted  by  the  ancient  Church.  It  is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Irenseus,1 
early  fathers,  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,8  and  by  Tertullian.9  It  was 
received  by  the  heretic  Marcion,  and  is  probably  quoted  in  the 
Epistles  of  Clement  of  Rome  and  Polycarp,  and  is  contained  in  the 
Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori.  Its  genuine 
ness  was  attacked  by  Baur,  but  is  defended  by  Hilgenfeld,4  and 
conceded  by  De  Wette.6 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    TO    THE    THESSALONIANS. 
PLACE   AND   TIME   OF    ITS   COMPOSITION. 

IT  appears  that  the  statement  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
^  lonians  respecting  the  second  coming  of  Christ  had  produced  a 
probably  writ-  great  excitement  among  them,  and  it  is  very  probable  it 
ten  at  Corinth.  iecj  to  some  extravagant  conduct,  such  as  we  have  seen 
among  the  Millerites  of  our  time.  The  apostle  writes  chiefly  to 
assure  them  that  Christ's  coming  is  remote,  and  that  a  great  apos 
tasy  is  first  to  take  place  in  the  Church.  Now,  as  the  First  Epistle 
was  written  during  the  first  part  of  Paul's  sojourn  in  Corinth,  which 
lasted  eighteen  months,  it  is  probable  that  this  was  written  within  a 

1  v,  cap.  vi,  i  "Psedag.,  i,  cap.  v,  vL  *De  Resur.  Came,  cap.  xxiv 

'Einleitung,  p.  236-247,  Leipzig,  1875  *  Einleitung   pp.  277-279. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  681 

year  later,  at  the  same  place,  about  A.  D.  53,  and  with  this  place  and 
time  igrees  the  fact  that  Silvanus  (Silas)  and  Timothy  are  associated 
with  Paul  in  addressing  the  Church  (ch.  i,  i).  It  is  certain  from  Acts 
xviii  5,  and  from  i  Thess.  i,  i,  that  Silas  and  Timothy  were  with  Paul 
at  Corinth,  and  it  seems  that  these  were  not  found  togethei  after 
Paul  left  Corinth  and  went  up  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xviii,  18-22). 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle  thanks  God  and  glories  in  the  progress  which  the 
Tbessalonians  are  making  in  the  Christian  virtues,  and  in  their  patient 
endurance  of  affliction  from  the  wicked,  who  shall  be  punished  at  the 
coming  of  Christ.  This  event,  however,  he  assures  them  is  not  at 
hand,  and  that  there  will  be,  first,  a  great  apostasy  in  the  Church,  and 
that  the  man  of  sin,  exhibiting  himself  as  God  in  the  temple  of  God, 
shall  first  be  revealed  ;  that  this  wicked  personage,  by  lying  wonders, 
will  deceive  those  who  love  not  the  truth.  He  expresses  confidence 
in  them,  and  exhorts  them  to  steadfastness.  He  also  asks  their 
prayers,  and  is  confident  they  will  perform  what  he  commands.  He 
reminds  them  of  the  manner  in  which  he  conducted  himself  when 
among  them,  and  gives  directions  respecting  the  treatment  of  the 
disorderly  and  disobedient. 

THE   GENUINENESS   OF   THIS   EPISTLE. 

This  Epistle,  equally  with  the  first  to  the  Thessalonians,  was  uni 
versally  acknowledged  by  the  ancient  Church  as  the  writing  of  the 
Apostle  Paul.  It  is  quoted  as  the  apostle's  by  Irenaeus,1  Clement* 
of  Alexandria,  and  by  Tertullian.*  It  is  in  the  Peshito-Syriac,  and 
in  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  and  was  received  by  Marcion.  Justin 
Martyr  4  clearly  refers  to  this  Epistle  when  he  speaks  of  "  The  man 
of  sin,"  (o  T7ft  dvojLtmc  avtfpwTroc),  and  "  The  man  of  apostasy,"  (6  T% 


In  modern  times  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  has  been  almost 
universally  acknowledged.  Its  genuineness  has,  indeed, 
been  attacked  by  Schmidt,  Kern,  Baur,  and  very  recently 
by  Hilgenfeld,6  who  thinks  that  it  was  written  by  a  conser-  this  Epistle. 
vative  of  the  school  of  Paul  in  or  near  Macedonia  in  the  last  time  of 
Trajan  (98-1  17),  that  is,  forty  or  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  Paul. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  an  Epistle  forged  at  that  time  could  have 
met  with  universal  reception,  and  especially  how  it  could  have  im 
posed  upon  the  large  Church  in  the  important  city  of  Thessalonica, 

*Li.b.  iv,  cap.  xxvii  ;  lib.  v,  cap.  xxv,  I.  "Stromata,  v,  cap.  iii. 

'  Advers.  Marcion.,  v,  xvi  ;  De  Resur.  Car.,  xxiv.      *  Dial.  cumTryph.,  32,  IXC 

*  Einleitung,  pp.  642-652,  Leipzig,  1875. 


082  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  was  accepted  as  Paul's  by  the  heretic 
Marcion  of  Pontus,  who  made  havoc  of  the  Scriptures.  As  he  ap 
peared  in  Rome  as  early  as  A.  D.  138,  it  is  impossible  that  an  Epistle 
which  came  into  circulation  but  twenty  years  earlier  could  have  been 
received  by  him  as  Paul's.  Hilgenfeld  thinks  he  finds  traces  o( 
Gnosticism  in  the  Epistle  in  the  working  of  "  the  myster)  of  iniquity," 
(ch.  ii,  7),  and  in  the  idlers  and  busybodies  (ch.  iii,  u),  whom  he  re- 
gards  as  "  common  vagabonds,  agents  of  a  heresy  !  "  It  certainly  in 
dicates  a  mind  of  remarkable  acuteness  and  perversity  to  see  in  those 
who  would  not  work  the  agents  of  a  heresy  !  Nor  is  Hilgenfeld  less 
perverse  in  his  judgment  when  he  sees  in  "the  mystery  of  iniquity," 
Gnosticism ;  for  this  heresy  never  sat  in  the  temple  of  God,  but 
was  scattered  abroad  outside.  "  The  man  of  sin  "  is,  to  some  extent, 
based  on  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  (chap,  xi,  36-45),  but  the  apostle 
goes  far  into  the  future.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  was  acquainted  with  the  Apocalypse,  so  that  no  argument 
from  any  such  acquaintance  can  be  adduced  against  its  early  com 
position.  Hilgenfeld  alleges  that  in  2  Thess.  ii,  13  ;  iii,  3,  5,  16, 
Lord  (/cvptoc)  is  used  for  God,  not  for  Christ ;  while  in  the  genuine 
writings  of  Paul,  Kvpiog  (Lord)  for  God  stands  only  in  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament.  But  in  2  Cor.  viii,  21,  "Providing  for 
honest  things,  not  only  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  also  in  the  sight 
of  men,"  Lord  appears  to  refer  to  God  the  Father,  and  probably  to 
him  is  the  reference  in  the  preceding  verse.  And  in  Phil,  ii,  24, 
where  Paul  speaks  of  trusting  in  "  the  Lord,"  the  reference  may  be 
to  the  Father.  Perhaps,  also,  the  reference  is  the  same  in  Philemon 
20,  and  2  Cor.  iii,  17  '•  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit."  But  it  is 
not  at  all  certain  that  in  the  passages  in  2  Thessalonians  to  which 
Hilgenfeld  refers,  KVQIOS  (Lord)  is  used  for  the  "Father." 

Equally  unsuccessful  is  Hilgenfeld  in  showing  that  the  passage, 
"  That  our  God  would  count  you  worthy  of  this  calling  "  (r^  Klr)ae- 
u>f)  (2  Thess.  i,  n),  is  not  Pauline,  as  the  apostle  in  his  genuine  writ 
ings  knows  nothing  of  a  calling  still  in  the  future  for  Christians,  but 
only  as  something  that  is  past.  But  in  what  way  is  the  language  in 
consistent  with  Paul's  usage  ?  He  prays  that  God  would  count  the 
Thessalonians  as  having  proved  themselves,  by  their  conduct,  worthy 
of  the  high  privileges  to  which  they  have  been  called.  The  apostle 
in  i  Cor.  vii,  20,  certainly  uses  the  word  Khrjaig  (calling)  in  the  sense 
of  vocation  :  "  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  (same)  calling  (K^TJOI^) 
wherein  he  was  called."  It  may  be  used  in  the  sense  of  vocation 
in  Phil,  iii,  14:  "The  prize  of  the  high  calling,"  etc.  Hilgenfeld 
understands  the  passage,  2  Thessalonians  i,  n,  to  refer  to  the  call  to 
martyrdom,  a  usage  of  the  word,  he  says,  not  found  before  the  sec.. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  683 

ond  century.  But  there  is  certainly  no  reference  in  the  text  to 
martyrdom.  The  fact  is,  there  is  no  well-grounded  objection  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle.  Its  Hebraisms  showt  hat  it  was 
written  by  a  man  whose  education  must  have  been  largely  Jewish. 
Even  the  skeptical  DeWette  admits  it  to  be  genuine.1 

In  chap,  ii,  2,  the  apostle  exhorts  the  Thessalonians  not  to  be  "  soon 
shaken  in  mind,  or  be  troubled,  neither  by  spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor 
by  letter,  as  from  us,  as  that  the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand."  By  this 
the  apostle  means,  that  no  report  of  remarks  by  him,  or  anything 
purporting  to  be  written  by  him,  shall  be  accredited  if  it  teaches  that 
the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  this  that 
any  one  had  forged  an  Epistle  in  the  name  of  Paul,  and  sent  it  to 
the  Thessalonians,  for  that,  under  the  circumstances,  is  very  improb 
able,  and  Paul  could  not  have  failed  to  notice  it,  and  brand  it  as  it 
deserved.  They  had  drawn  the  inference  from  Paul's  first  letter, 
and,  perhaps,  from  supposed  remarks  of  his,  that  the  coming  of  Christ 
was  near. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES. 

THE  so-called  Pastoral  Epistles  embrace  the  two  of  Paul  to 
Timothy,  and  his  Epistle  to  Titus.  The  term  "  Pastoral  "  has 
been  given  them  because  they  treat  largely  of  the  qualifications  and 
duties  of  Christian  ministers  or  pastors.  Among  the  duties  of  the 
minister,  the  inculcation  of  sound  doctrine  is  enjoined,  and  the 
avoidance  of  "  foolish  questions  and  genealogies,"  and  "  Jewish 
fables,"  and  "  contentions  and  strivings  about  the  law,"  as  unprofit 
able  and  vain.  The  apostle  lays  especial  stress  upon  the  practical 
duties  of  religion,  and  the  maintenance  of  a  holy  life. 

These  Epistles  bear  marks  of  belonging  to  a  late  period  in  the 
apostle's  life,  but  there  is  nothing  in  them  that  carries  us  Objections  of 
beyond  the  apostolic  age.  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  imagine  j^eidtotbSr 
they  see  in  these  Epistles  references  to  heresies  that  did  genuineness. 
not  exist  till  near  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Both  of  these 
rationalistic  critics  refer  "oppositions  of  science  falsely  so  cilled" 
(i  Tim.  vi,  20)  to  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  who  set  the  gospel  in  op 
position  to  the  law.  Critics  of  the  stamp  of  Baur  and  HHgenfeld 
cari  find  almost  any  difficulty  they  seek.  Marcion  taught  that  the 
creation  and  the  Jewish  dispensation  did  not  proceed  from  the 
'Einleitung,  pp.  277-279. 


684  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

supreme  God  revealed  by  Christ,  but  from  an  evil  being  But  the 
form  in  which  Marcion  set  forth  his  doctrine  could  be  scarcely  called 
ugn#sts"  knowledge,  science,  the  word  used  in  i  Timothy  vi,  20.  On 
Marcion  Neander  *  remarks :  "  The  opposition  between  mans  [faitti\ 
and  yv&ms  [knowledge],  between  an  exoteric  and  an  esoteric  Chris 
tianity,  was  among  the  marked  peculiarities  of  the  other  Gnostic  sys 
tems;  but  in  Marcion 's  case,  on  the  contrary,  who  adhered  so 
closely  to  the  practical  Apostle  Paul,  no  such  opposition  could  pos 
sibly  be  allowed  to  exist." 

But  the  term  "  gnosis,"  knowledge,  is  used  in  various  places  in  un- 
Useortheterm  questioned  Epistles  of  this  apostle.  "  Knowledge,"  says 
puosis  in  Paul's  he  (the  gnosis\  "puffeth  up,"  but  love  buildeth  up  (i  Cor. 
viii,  i) ;  again  he  speaks  of  the  "  shining  of  knowledge  " 
(the gnosis]  (  2  Cor.  iv,  6).  It  is  very  probable  that  the  passage  under 
discussion  refers  to  the  opposition  of  philosophy  to  Christianity.  The 
heathen  philosophers  and  other  men  of  culture  had  systems  which 
they  supposed  rested  on  the  deductions  of  the  intellect,  and  these 
were  put  in  opposition  to  Christianity,  just  as  in  modern  times  panthe 
ism,  and  certain  cosmical  and  materialistic  systems,  are  set  in  opposi 
tion  to  it.  In  like  manner  the  apostle  warns  the  Colossians  against 
being  led  astray  "  by  philosophy  and  vain  deceit  according  to  the  doc 
trine  of  men  "  (chap.  ii.  8).  The  "  genealogies,"  to  which  reference  is 
made,  were  evidently  Jewish,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  heretical  teach 
ers  spoken  of  in  i  Tim.  i,  7  were  not  Marcionites,  as  they  desired  to 
be  "teachers  of  the  law."  In  i  Timothy  iv,  1-3,  the  apostle  says: 
"  Now  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times  some 
shall  depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits,  .  .  .  for 
bidding  to  marry,"  etc.  It  is  perfectly  gratuitous  in  Hilgenfeld  to 
refer  the  heresy  which  forbids  marriage  to  Saturninus  in  the  second 
century,  and  then  to  draw  the  inference  that  the  Epistle  was  not 
written  until  after  that  heresy  arose.  Now,  although  the  apostle 
speaks  of  what  is  in  the  future,  the  germs  of  the  error  rejecting 
marriage  were  already  in  existence,  and  had  been  developed,  out 
side  of  the  Church  at  least,  in  the  apostolic  age,  since  it  is  well 
known  that  the  Jewish  Essenes  a  in  the  time  of  Christ  rejected  mar 
riage,  as  did  the  Therapeutic  in  Egypt.8  Nor  is  it,  indeed,  strange 
that  some  Christians,  through  incorrect  ideas  of  purity  and  a  rigid 
asceticism,  should  have  fallen  into  the  error  of  condemning  marriage 
even  as  early  as  the  apostolic  *  age. 

1  General  Church  History,  vol.  i,  p.  460. 

'Josephus,  Antiq.,  xviii,  cap.  i,  5  ;  Bel.  Judic.,  ii,  8,  2.  'Philo,  ii,  478,481. 

4  The  declaration  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  Marriage  is  honourable  in  all  • 
fchap.  xiii,  4),  would  seem  to  imply  that  some  were  doubting  it 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  685 

The  reference  in  i  Tim.  v  to  the  provision  made  by  the  Church 
for  the  support  of  widows  does  aot  indicate  a  post-apos-  othcr  refer_ 
tolic  age,  as  we  find  such  provision  was  made  for  them  ences  in  agree- 
in  the  very  infancy  of  the  apostolic  Church  (Acts  vi,  i). 


Nor  do  we  find  any  thing  in  2  Timothy  indicating  a  post-  ticeof  theapos- 

tolic  Church. 

apostolic  age.  And  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus  the  warning 
is  not  to  give  heed  to  "Jewish  fables"  (chapter  i,  14),  and  to 
"avoid  foolish  questions,  and  genealogies,  and  contentions,  and  striv 
ings  about  the  law"  (chap,  iii,  9).  Such  a  warning  as  this  would 
have  been  hardly  necessary  in  a  more  advanced  stage  of  Christian 
ity  in  the  second  century.  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus  when  the  two 
Epistles  were  addressed  to  him  (i  Tim.  i,  3  ;  2  Tim.  i,  16-18; 
iv,  19),  and  the  warning  against  heretical  teachers  is  in  perfect  har 
mony  with  Paul's  address  at  Miletus  to  the  elders  assembled  from 
Ephesus.  "  For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departure  shall  grievous 
wolves  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock  "  (Acts  xx,  29). 

But  the  fact  that  i  Timothy  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus  recognize 
but  two  orders  of  ministers,  namely,  bishops,  or  presby-  Qther  rwf  cf 
ters,  and  deacons,  is  a  strong  proof  that  they  belong  to  anapostoucor 
the  first  century.1  In  i  Timothy  iii  the  qualifications  Igln' 
of  bishops  and  deacons  are  described,  but  there  is  not  a  word  about 
presbyters  ;  but  in  chap,  v  we  have  ruling  presbyters,  who  are  evi 
dently  the  same  as  bishops.  Likewise,  the  bishop  in  Titus  i,  7  is  the 
presbyter  of  chap,  i,  5.  This  identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter  cor 
responds  with  what  we  find  in  Acts  xx,  17,  28,  where  the  presbyters 
of  the  former  verse  are  called  bishops  in  the  latter.  But  in  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century,  if  not  earlier,  the  bishop  was  distin 
guished  from  the  presbyter,  as  we  find  in  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  to 
Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna  (written  about  A.  D.  115),  where  we 
have  "  the  bishop,  and  the  presbyters,  and  the  deacons."  3 

That  Paul  should  write  Epistles,  instructing  Timothy  and  Titus, 
in  matters  pertaining  to  their  ministry  and  Church  offices,  is  not  in 
the  least  improbable.  In  i  Cor.  xii,  28  he  speaks  of  various  offices 
in  the  Church,  and  in  Acts  xx,  28  he  speaks  of  bishops  or  overseers 
in  the  Church. 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  genuineness  of  these  three  Epistles,  that 
their  style  is  different  from  that  of  the  universally  ac-  objections  to  be 
knowledged  Pauline  writings.     And  it  must  be  acknowl-  S^JSSSpS! 
edged  that  this  is  quite  true,  and  there  is  reason  for  it;    torai  Epistles. 
for  the  apostle  is  not  writing  to  Christian  Churches,  but  to  individ- 

'In  2  Timothy  the  orders  of  ministers  are  not  discussed. 

"In  Cureton's  Syriac  text  of  the  Epistles,  shorter  than  the  shortest  Greek  text  ;  il 
may,  therefore,  be  assumed  to  be  free  from  interpolations. 


C86  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

uals,  upon  subjects  different  from  any  that  had  before  engaged  his 
pen.  In  writing  upon  the  same  subjects,  it  is  natural  to  expect  the 
ideas,  language,  and  the  author's  manner  of  presentation  to  be  sub 
stantially  the  same.  But  when  the  subject  is  changed,  the  thoughts, 
language,  and  method  of  discussion  are  very  naturally  different. 
Who  would  expect  a  philological  dissertation  to  be  similar  in 
thought  and  style  to  a  biography,  or  an  essay  on  moral  obligation  ? 
And  how  different  in  style  is  Paul's  Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  Hil. 
genfeld  acknowledges  to  be  genuine,  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro 
mans!  In  the  latter  there  are  about  thirty  words  found  in  no 
other  Epistle  of  Paul,  waiving  that  to  the  Hebrews.  What  a  string  of 
unusual  words  do  we  find  in  Romans  i,  26-31,  where  the  apos 
tle  is  describing  the  crimes  of  the  Pagan  world !  The  list  of  new 
words  in  i  Timothy  i  has  its  parallel  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epis 
tle  to  the  Romans. 

The  chief  objections  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles  have  been  brought 
Special  objec-  against  the  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy. 
Renuineness^f  Tt  has  been  thought  strange  that  Paul,  in  writing  to  this 
First  Timothy  intimate  companion  and  friend,  should  say  respecting 
his  apostleship:  "I  speak  the  truth,1  and  lie  not" 
(chap,  ii,  7).  Paul  on  several  other  occasions  uses  the  phrase,  "  I 
lie  not"  (Rom.  ix,  i;  2  Cor.  xi,  31;  Gal.  i,  20).  In  the  first  of 
these  passages  he  uses  the  expression  in  reference  to  his  sincere 
sorrow  for  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  where  it  scarcely  seems  neces 
sary.  But  are  we  competent  to  determine  exactly  what  Paul  would 
write,  and  what  he  would  not  ?  In  speaking  of  his  apostleship  to 
Timothy,  he  declares  the  absolute  certainty  of  his  mission,  not  for 
Timothy  only,  but  for  the  teachers  of  all  time. 

In  chap,  iv,  12  the  apostle  charges  Timothy:  "Let  no  man  de 
spise  thy  youth."  Now,  as  Timothy  at  the  time  he  was  thus  ad 
dressed  could  not  well  have  been  less  than  thirty-five a  years  of  age,  the 
term  "  youth  "  has  been  thought  inapplicable  to  him.  But  among  both 
Greeks  and  Latins  the  term  youth  (VSOTTJS,  youth  ;  vedvcaKO$,  young 
man  ;  juventus,^?^//*/  juvenis,  a  young  man)  was  applicable  to  evtry 
man  between  twenty  and  forty  years  of  age?  In  the  same  wide  applica 
tion  can  the  phrase  "  youthful  lusts "  (vewrept/cdf  im$v[j,iti$)  in 
2  Tim.  ii,  22  be  taken. 

*The  addition,  "  in  Christ,"  is  wanting  in  the  best  MSS. 

1  The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  was,  in  all  probability,  written  about  A.  D.  65  or  66 
About  fourteen  or  fifteen  years  previous  to  this  Paul  found  him  at  Lystra,  and  made 
him  his  companion  in  his  missionary  tour  (Acts  xvi,  1-3).  Now,  supposing  that  at 
this  time  he  was  about  twenty  or  twenty-two  years  of  age,  he  would  be  about  thixty. 
five  when  the  apostle  wrote  to  him. 

8  See  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon,  and  Andrews'  Latin  Lexicon. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  637 

In  i  T  imothy  v,  18  the  writer  states  that  the  Scripture  says,  Thou 
shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn ;  and  ^  objection 
the  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  reward.  The  last  passage  is  founded  on 
the  exact  language  of  Luke  x,  7.  But  no  well  founded  chapterT'18- 
objection  can  be  urged  against  the  Pauline  origin  of  the  Epistle  on 
this  ground,  as  it  is  most  probable  that  Luke's  Gospel  was  written 
four  or  five  years  before  the  death  of  Paul.  But  even  if  it  was  not, 
the  apostle  could  have  derived  the  passage  from  Luke  himself,  if 
from  no  other  source,  just  as  he  gives  in  i  Cor.  xi,  24,  25  the  ac 
count  of  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  by  Christ,  substantially  in 
the  language  of  Luke  xxii,  19,  20.  It  is  not  necessary  to  extend 
the  quotation  following  "  the  Scripture  says  "  (chap,  v,  18)  beyond  the 
passage  from  the  Old  Testament ;  and  our  Lord's  declaration,  "  The 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire, "may  be  severed  from  the  preceding,  and 
stated  independently. 

The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  first  attacked  by  Schleiermacher. 
Its  genuineness  was  doubted  by  Neander,1  and  denied  by  Bleek.* 
These  critics,  however,  acknowledge  the  genuineness  of  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  De  Wette  3  regards 
the  three  Epistles  as  inseparably  connected  together  in  language 
and  ideas,  and  denies  the  genuineness  of  all  three.  They  are  re 
jected  by  Baur,  Schwegler,  Hilgenfeld,  Ewald,  and  some  others. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  genuineness  of  all  three  has  been  defended  by 
Bertholdt,  Hug,  Heydenreich,  Baumgarten,  Bottger,  Wieseler,  Wies- 
inger,  Delitzsch,  and  others.  All  three  Epistles  were  universally  re 
ceived  in  the  ancient  Church,  and  De  Wette  admits  that,  apart  from  the 
fact  that  they  were  rejected  as  a  whole  or  in  part  by  the  heretics, 
and  that  they  were  not  in  the  collection  of  Marcion,  who  probably 
had  a  dogmatic  interest  in  the  matter,  "  they  are  not  less  attested  by 
external  testimonies  than  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul."  4 

If  the  Epistles  contain  such  marks  of  unity  of  authorship  as  show 
them  to  have  been  written  by  a  single  individual — and  this  appears 
to  be  the  real  state  of  the  case — then  the  doubts  that  have  been 
raised  on  internal  grounds  respecting  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy 
may  be  dispelled  by  the  internal  evidences  furnished  by  the  other 
two  Epistles  in  proof  of  their  Pauline  origin. 

De  Wette  complains  of  the  difficulty  of  making  the  historical  inci 
dents,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  Epistles,  harmonize  with 
the  facts  of  the  apostle's  life.  And  on  the  supposition  that  Paul 
suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome  at  the  end  of  his  two  years'  imprison 
ment,  described  in  Acts  xxviii,  16-31,  there  is  no  suitable  place  in 

1  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Church,  pp.  338,  339. 

•Einleitung.  pp  565-578.        'Einleitung,  pp.  337-339.         4Einleitung,  p.  340 


638  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

the  life  of  the  apostle  for  the  insertion  of  the  Epistles,  and  the 
events  <3f  which  they  speak.  But  we  have  already  seen  in  the  sketch 
of  his  life  that  he  must  have  been  released  from  this  imprisonment, 
and  have  visited  Spain,  and  in  all  probability  Macedonia,  Asia  Minor, 
incidents  noted  and  some  other  places,  in  the  three  or  four  years  interven- 

in  these  Epts-  jng  between  his  first  imprisonment  and  his  final  airest 
ties  proofs  of 

their  Pauline  and  martyrdom.  We  have  seen  that  Clement  of  Rome 
origin.  jn  tlie  £rst  century  testifies  that  Paul  travelled  to 

the  bound  of  the  West,  and  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  written  at  Rome 
soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  speaks  of  Paul  setting 
out  from  the  city  for  Spain.  Now,  if  these  Epistles  can  be  brought 
into  harmony  with  what  was  most  probably  the  history  of  Paul 
after  his  release  from  the  first  imprisonment  at  Rome,  we  shall 
have  no  slight  proof  of  their  genuineness.  And  here  it  must  be  ob 
served,  that  it  is  altogether  probable  that  Paul  would  address  Epistles 
to  individuals  or  Churches  during  the  three  or  four  years  subsequent 
to  his  release  from  imprisonment  in  Rome.  In  the  twelve  years  pre 
ceding  his  release  he  wrote  ten. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  written  during  his  first  imprison 
ment  at  Rome,  the  apostle  says,  "  I  trust  in  the  Lord  that  I  also  my- 
Paui's  travels  se^sna^  come  shortly  "  [to  you]  (chap,  ii,  24);  and  in  writ- 
after  his  first  ing,  during  the  same  imprisonment,  to  Philemon  of  Co- 
lossae, he  directs  him  "prepare  me  also  a  lodging  "  (ver. 
22).  From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  St.  Paul  expected  to  be  re 
leased  from  his  imprisonment,  and  to  visit  the  Philippians  and  Colossi- 
ans.  In  accordance  with  this,  in  his  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  he  tells 
him :  "  As  I  commanded  thee  to  remain  in  Ephesus,  when  I  was 
setting  out  for  Macedonia"  (chap,  i,  3).  This  must  refer  to  what  took 
place  after  his  release  from  imprisonment,  for  there  is  no  place  for 
it  befoic  that  time.  In  2  Timothy  iv,  13  he  mentions  his  having 
left  a  cloak  at  Troas;  and  in  verse  20  he  states  that  he  left  Trophi- 
mus  at  Miletus,  sick.  Both  of  these  incidents  must  have  occurred 
after  the  release  from  the  first  imprisonment.  In  respect  to  Trophi- 
mus,  we  find  that  he  accompanied  Paul  on  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem 
(Acts  xx,  4;  xxi,  29).  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  Trophimus  ac 
companied  Paul  when  he  sailed  for  Rome  (Acts  xxvii,  2) ;  and,  even 
if  he  did,  Paul  could  not  have  left  him  at  Miletus,  for  the  vessel 
did  not  touch  at  that  port  (Acts  xxvii,  4-7).  From  the  preceding 
facts  it  is  evident  that  Paul  after  his  release  visited  Asia  Minoi 
and  Macedonia,  as  he  had  intended.  In  2  Tim.  iv,  20  he  states 
that  Erastus  remained  at  Corinth ;  and  it  is  probable,  from  the 
connection  in  which  Erastus  stands  with  Trophimus,  that  the  apos 
tle  left  him  in  Corinth.  In  the  Epistle  to  Titus  the  apostle  states 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  089 

that  he  left  him  in  Crete,  from  which  it  appears  that  Paul  was  in 
that  island  after  his  release  from  imprisonment.  He  requests  Titus 
to  meet  him  in  Nicopolis,  where  he  has  determined  to  winter 
(chap,  iii,  12).  This  Nicopolis  was  situated  in  the  southern  part  of 
Epirus,  on  the  coast  of  the  Ionian  sea,  a  little  north  of  the  entrance 
to  the  Ambraciot  gulf.  Strabo  states  that  it  was  founded  by  Augus 
tus  Caesar.1  Paul's  journey  to  Crete  and  his  wintering  in  Nicopolis 
must  be  referred,  also,  to  a  time  subsequent  tc  his  release  from  im 
prisonment.  It  is,  indeed,  quite  clear  that  the  incidents  related  in 
the  Epistles  occurred  subsequent  to  the  apostle's  release. 

From  the  foregoing  facts,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  Paul  after 
his  release  visited  Crete,  and  afterward  Miletus  (and  probably 
Colossae,  and  not  unlikely  Ephesus),  Troas,  Macedonia,  Corinth, 
and  spent  the  following  winter  in  Nicopolis.  It  is  very  probable  that, 
while  on  his  way  through  Macedonia  to  Nicopolis,  he  wrote  the 
First  Epistle  a  to  Timothy ;  that  to  Titus  he  may  have  written  in 
Asia  Minor.  After  his  arrival  in  Rome,  and  while  in  bonds  (about 
A.  D.  68),  a  short  time  before  his  execution,  he  wrote  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  as  appears  from  chap,  i,  16,  17  ;  iv,  6,  7. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Titus  was  to  meet  Paul  at  Nicopolis ; 
and,  accordingly,  we  find  that  the  apostle,  writing  from  Rome  to  Tim 
othy,  says  that  Titus  has  departed  unto  Dalmatia  (2  Tim.  iv,  TO), 
which  lay  along  the  east  coast  of  the  Adriatic  Sea,  about  two  hundred 
and  fifty  miles  northwest  of  Nicopolis.  Now,  this  latter  town  is  on 
the  way  from  Crete  to  Dalmatia. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  Paul,  after  his  release  from 
imprisonment,  went  first  into  Spain  9  or  not.  But  the  remarks  of 
the  apostle  in  his  last  Epistle,  just  before  his  martyrdom,  that  he  had 
left  Trophimus  at  Miletus  sick,  and  the  direction  to  Timothy  to 
bring  the  cloak  that  he  had  left  at  Troas  with  Carpus,  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  no  great  length  of  time  had  elapsed  since  he  was  in 
A,sia  Minor. 

In  Acts  xx,  25  Paul,  in  addressing  the  overseers  of  the  Church  of 
Ephesus  assembled  at  Miletus,  says  :  "  And  now,  be-  xeaxtagoi Act8 
hold,  I  know  that  ye  all,  among  whom  I  have  gone  xx,  25  on  thi* 
preaching  the  kingdom  (of  God),  shall  see  my  face  no 
more."  This  might  be  explained  by  supposing  that  Paul,  though  he 
visited  Miletus  after  his  release  from  imprisonment,  did  not  go  to 

1  Lib.  vii,  324. 

3  In  chap,  i,  3  he  speaks  of  "  setting  out  for  Macedonia  "  as  something  past. 

"la  Rom.  xv,  24  he  declares  his  intention  to  visit  Rome  on  his  way  to  Spain. 
And  it  would  seem  most  natural  to  suppose  he  would  go  there  from  Rome,  and  not 
refurn  to  Asia  Minor  first  and  go  to  Spain  afterward.     But  it  might  be  inferred  from 
Phil,  ii,  24  and  Philem.  22.  that  he  went  to  Asia  Minor  first 
VOL.  I.— 44 


tiOO  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Ephesus ;  but  such  explanation  would  not  be  natural,  and  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Paul  expected,  if  he  should  not  be  put  to  death  at 
Jerusalem,  to  go  to  Rome  (Acts  xix,  21),  and  he  felt  assured  that  he 
would  not  come  back  to  the  region  of  Ephesus.  In  the  address  to 
the  Ephesian  elders,  he  also  says:  "I  go  bound  in  the  Spirit  unto 
Jerusalem,  not  knowing  the  things  that  shall  befall  me  there  :  save 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  witnesseth  in  every  city,  saying  that  bonds  and 
afflictions  abide  me  "  (chap,  xx,  22,  23).  Olshausen  well  remarks 
on  verse  25  :  "  The  apostle  here  expresses  merely  a  private  opinion, 
and  by  no  means  intimates  that  he  was  led  to  it  by  the  unerring 
Spirit  of  God."  '  But  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (ch.  ii,  24),  he 
expects  to  come  shortly  to  them  ;  and  in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  at 
Colossae  he  tells  Philemon  to  prepare  a  lodging  for  him.  Now,  in 
going  to  Colossae  from  Rome,  the  most  direct  way  was  through 
Ephesus.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  both  of  these  Epistles 
were  written  at  Rome  after  the  address  in  Acts  xx  was  delivered,  and 
their  genuineness  is  acknowledged  even  by  Hilgenfeld. 

Among  the  passages  in  these  Epistles,  which  no  forger  in  all  prob- 
sug-  ability  would  ever  have  written,  and  which  therefore  are 
Pro°fs  of  tneir  genuineness,  the  following  may  be  men- 
these  Epistles,  tioned  :  "  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  neither  be  par- 
taker  of  other  men's  sins :  keep  thyself  pure.  Drink  no  longer  water, 
but  use  a  little  wine  for  thy  stomach's  sake  and  thine  often  infirmities. 
Some  men's  sins  are  open  beforehand,  going  before  to  judgment, 
and  some  men  they  follow  after,"  etc.  (i  Tim.  v,  22-25).  The  inser 
tion  of  the  passage,  "  Drink  no  longer  water,  but  use  a  little  wine," 
etc.,  in  the  very  midst  of  a  passage  enjoining  care  in  ordaining  men 
to  the  ministry,  seems  very  odd,  and  yet  we  think  it  can  be  readily 
explained.  When  he  exhorts  to  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,' 
Timothy's  emaciated  frame  comes  vividly  before  the  apostle,  sug 
gested  by  the  "hands, "and  he  straightway  throws  in  the  admonition  re 
specting  the  use  of  wine,  and  continues  with  his  reflections  on  ordina 
tion.  But  what  forger  would  ever  have  pursued  such  a  course  as  this  ? 

In  2  Timothy  i,  5  the  apostle  says  to  Timothy:  "When  I  call  to 
remembrance  the  unfeigned  faith  that  is  in  thee,  which  first  dwelt 
in  thy  grandmother  Lois,  and  in  thy  mother  Eunice,"  etc.  No  one 
could  thus  have  written  of  the  piety  of  Timothy's  mother  and  grand 
mother,  and  have  given  their  names,  except  some  one  who,  like  Paul, 
had  been  for  a  long  time  intimate  with  Timothy.  Nor  is  there  the 
slightest  reason  why  a  forger  should  have  invented  these  names.  In 
2  Tim.  iv,  13  he  directs  Timothy:  "The  cloak  that  I  left  at  Troas 
with  Carpus,  when  thou  comest,  bring  with  thee,  and  the  books  but 
1  Commentary  on  Acts. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  691 

especially  the  parchments."  What  could  have  induced  a  forger  to 
write  such  a  passage  as  this!  If  he  was  trying  to  imitate  Paul,  he 
certainly  would  not  have  written  it,  for  the  apostle  in  no  other  Epis 
tle  has  given  any  such  directions.  In  this  Epistle  various  particulars 
are  given  in  respect  to  Paul's  friends,  and  the  air  of  reality  is  so 
impressed  upon  the  whole  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  forgery. 

The  Epistle  to  Titus  contains  specific  directions  respecting  indi 
viduals,  and  bears  the  stamp  of  reality.  Paul  directs  Titus  to  meet 
him  in  Nicopolis,  as  he  has  determined  to  winter  there.  No  reason 
could  be  assigned  for  a  forger's  introducing  this  town,  which  is  men 
tioned  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament. 


w 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    TO    TIMOTHY. 

THE  PERSON    OF   TIMOTHY. 

E  first  meet  with  this  eminent  companion  of  St.  Paul  in  Acts 
xvi,  i,  2,  where  he  is  called  a  disciple  of  good  repute,  the 
son  of  a  Jewish  woman,  a  believer  in  Christ,  but  of  a  Greek  father. 
He  appears  to  have  been  dwelling  in  Lystra  when  Paul  met  him. 
On  account  of  the  Jews,  Paul  circumcised  him,  and  took  him  with 
him  in  his  missionary  tour  through  Phrygia  and  Galatia  to  Troas,  and 
thence  to  Philippi,  Amphipolis,  Apollonia,  Thessalonica,  and  Berea, 
where  Paul  left  him  and  Silas,  and  went  to  Athens  (Acts  xvii).  Here 
Timothy  came  to  Paul,  who  sent  him  back  to  Thessalonica  (i  Thess. 
iii,  2),  from  which  city  he  came  to  Corinth  and  joined  Paul,  and  was 
with  him  when  he  wrote  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 
(i  Thess.  i,  i ;  2  Thess.  i,  i).  Two  or  three  years  later  we  find  him 
with  Paul  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix,  22),  from  whence  he  was  sent  into 
Macedonia,  and  to  Corinth,  it  seems,  with  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Christians  of  that  city  (Acts  xix,  22 ;  i  Cor.  xvi,  10).  Somewhat 
later  we  find  him  with  Paul  when  he  writes  the  Second  Epistle  from 
Macedonia  to  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor.  i,  i),  and  it  is  probable  that 
he  was  with  the  apostle  when,  during  his  three  months'  sojourn  in 
Corinth,  he  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (Acts  xvi,  21).  He 
accompanied  Paul  into  Asia  (Acts  xx,  4,  5),  where  it  is  probable  that 
he  left l  the  apostle,  who  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Some  time  after  the 

1  It  is  not  probable  that  Timothy  went  up  to  Jerusalem  with  Paul.  At  least,  it  is 
very  improbable  that  he  was  with  the  apostle  when  he  sailed  from  Caesarea  for  Rome, 
as  Luke  makes  no  mention  of  him,  while  he  names  Aristarchus,  a  man  of  less  note, 
as  sailing  with  Paul  (Acts  xxvii,  2). 


693  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

apostle's  arrival  in  Rome  he  was  joined  by  Timothy,  whose  name  is 
associated  with  Paul's  in  the  Epistles  addressed  to  the  Philippians, 
Colossians,  and  to  Philemon.  He  appears  at  one  time  to  have  been 
imprisoned,  probably  at  Rome,  as  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  speaks  of  his  being  set  at  liberty  (chap,  xiii,  23).  Euse- 
bius1  says,  it  is  related  that  Timothy  was  the  first  bishop  of  Ephesus, 
But  Jittle  is  known  of  him  after  he  disappears  from  the  Acts. 

CONTENTS. 

After  the  salutation,  the  apostle  informs  Timothy  that  he  had  re 
quested  him  to  abide  in  Ephesus  for  the  purpose  of  charging  that 
sound  doctrines  be  taught  and  heresies  avoided.  He  refers  to  him 
self  as  having  been  a  persecutor,  and  to  his  call  to  the  ministry  as  an 
example  of  the  divine  mercy,  for  the  benefit  of  others.  He  exhorts 
Timothy  to  perseverance  in  the  faith.  He  directs  that  prayers  be 
offered  for  all  men,  especially  for  those  in  authority,  declaring  that 
God  wills  the  salvation  of  all  through  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  of  which 
he  has  been  made  a  minister.  He  gives  directions  respecting  the 
deportment  of  women  (chaps,  i,  ii). 

He  describes  the  qualifications  of  bishops  and  deacons,  and  the 
conduct  required  of  their  wives.  He  expects  to  come  shortly  to  see 
Timothy,  but  writes  in  order  that,  if  he  does  not  come,  Timothy 
may  know  how  to  conduct  himself;  at  the  same  time  he  speaks  of 
the  great  mystery  that  is  found  in  the  gospel  system  (chap.  iii).  He 
foretells  through  the  Spirit  the  coming  apostasy  and  the  heresies  in 
the  Church,  instructs  Timothy  in  the  duties  of  personal  religion,  in 
the  treatment  of  elders  and  widows,  and  enjoins  caution  in  ordaining 
men  to  the  ministry  (chaps,  iv,  v).  He  also  describes  the  duties  of 
servants  to  their  masters,  exhorts  Timothy  to  withdraw  from  those 
who  teach  any  thing  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  points  out 
the  fatal  consequences  of  a  love  of  money,  exhorts  Timothy  in  the 
most  solemn  manner  to  be  faithful  to  warn  the  rich  against  trusting 
in  their  riches,  but  to  charge  them  to  trust  in  God,  to  be  rich  in 
good  works,  and  benevolent,  and  he  concludes  by  warning  Timothy 
against  the  pretences  of  a  false  science. 

ANCIENT   TESTIMONIES   TO   THE   GENUINENESS   OF   TKJS   EPISTLE. 

Polycarp,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  quotes  chap,  vi,  7  : 

"Knowing  therefore  that  we  brought  nothing  into  the 
Polyc&rpj  Iro*  m  »§  a         •  M         j 

Metis,  and  oth-  world,  nor  can  we  carry  any  thing  out.       It  is  attributed 

**  to  Paul  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  the  Canon 

1  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  iv.  •  Sec.  4. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  693 

ol  Muratori.  Irenaeus  gives  a  part  of  chap,  vi,  20,  with  the  remark, 
"Paul  well  says."  !  He  also  quotes  a  part  of  chap,  i,  9  a  and  chap, 
ii,  5.'  It  is  ascribed  to  Paul  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,4  and  by 
Tertullian,6  and  nowhere  do  we  find  a  doubt  of  its  Paulh:e  origin  in 
the  Church.  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  quotes  (about  A.  D. 
180)  chap,  ii,  2,  "That  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life," 
which  he  prefaces  with  the  remark  "The  divine  Scripture  com- 
mands."'  It  is  well  known  that  the  heretic  Marcion  rejected  this 
Epistle,  but  on  dogmatic  grounds  in  all  probability.  It  is  found  in 
all  the  ancient  versions."* 


T 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    TO    TIMOTHY. 

CONTENTS. 

HE  apostle  expresses  his  ardent  affection  for  Timothy,  and  his 
strong  desire  to  see  him,  and  speaks  of  his  sincere  faith,  which 
was  also  in  his  mother  and  grandmother.  He  exhorts  him  to  stir 
up  the  gift  that  is  in  him,  and  not  to  be  ashamed  of  the  testimony  of 
the  Lord  and  his  prisoner.  He  refers  to  the  revelation  and  power  of 
the  gospel,  of  which  he  is  a  minister  and  apostle  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  expresses  his  confidence  in  God,  exhorts  Timothy  to  fidelity  in 
doctrine,  in  faith  and  love,  and  complains  that  all  those  of  Asia  have 
turned  away  from  him,  with  the  exception  of  Onesiphorus,  upon 
whose  family  he  invokes  the  divine  blessing  (chap.  i).  He  exhorts 
Timothy  to  fidelity  in  his  work  by  various  considerations,  and  refer? 
to  his  own  sufferings  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel,  and  at  the  same  time 
urges  him  to  shun  youthful  lusts,  to  attend  to  the  practical  duties  of 
religion,  avoiding  foolish  and  unlearned  questions,  and  to  conduct 
himself  with  gentleness  toward  the  enemies  of  the  truth,  that  they, 
perchance,  may  be  saved  (chap.  ii). 

He  describes  the  persons  who  shall  appear  in  the  last  days,  ex 
horts  Timothy  to  follow  the  doctrines  he  has  learned  from  him,  com 
mends  to  him  the  inspired  Scriptures,  reminding  him  of  his  own 
afflictions  and  persecutions  at  Antioch,  Iconium,  and  Lystra,  and 

n,  cap.  xiv,  7.        *  iv,  cap.  xvi,  3.        *  v,  cap.  xvii,  I.        4  Stromata,  ii,  cap.  vi,  xi. 

*  Adversus  Marcionem,  v,  cap.  xxi.     Liber  de  Pnescrip.,  cap.  xxv. 

*  Ad  Autolycum,  iii,  14.     The  Greek  is  exactly  the  same  as  is  used  in  i  Timothy 
ii,  2,  and  is  quoted  by  him  after  reference  to  prayers  for  rulers. 

'In  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic  Gothic,  Armenian,  and  ^Ethiopic,  besides  the 
Peshito-Syriac. 


694  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  STUDY 

how  the  Lord  had  delivered  him  (chap.  iii).  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  time  will  come  when  sound  doctrine  will  not  be  endured, 
he  gives  Timothy  a  solemn  charge  respecting  preaching,  declares 
that  his  departure  is  at  hand,  and  that  he  is  ready  to  be  offered,  that 
he  has  been  faithful,  and  that  a  glorious  reward  awaits  him,  and 
urges  Timothy  to  come  shortly  to  him  as  only  Luke  is  with  him. 
He  gives  him  various  directions,  speaks  of  his  first  defence  (before 
Nero),  and  states  that  the  Lord  stood  by  him  though  men  had  for 
saken  him,  and  is  confident  respecting  the  future.  He  closes  with 
salutations  and  greetings,  and  urges  Timothy  to  come  to  him  before 
winter  (chap.  iv). 

ANCIENT    TESTIMONIES    TO   THE   GENUINENESS   OF    THE   EPISTLE. 

The  Epistle  is  found  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  the 
Found  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori.  It  is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Irenaeus,1 
Peshito-syriac  as  his  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  by  Clement9  of  Alex 

ion,  etc.  andria)  an(}  js  attributed  to  Paul  by  Tertullian.8  Origen, 
in  commenting  on  Matthew  xxvii,  9,  remarks :  "  As  Jannes  and 
Jambres  resisted  Moses  is  not  found  in  the  public  Scriptures,  but  in 
an  obscure  book  with  the  superscription:  ''The  book  Jannes  and 
Jambres;'  from  this  circumstance  some  have  dared  to  reject  the 
[Second]  Epistle  to  Timothy  as  containing  matter  of  a  secret  char 
acter,  but  they  were  not  successful."  With  this  exception,  it  does 
not  appear  that  any  doubt  was  expressed  by  the  ancient  Church  re 
specting  its  Pauline  origin.  It  is  found  in  all  the  ancient  versions. 


T 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    TITUS. 
THE  PERSON  OF  TITUS. 

HE  name  of  this  companion  of  Paul  occurs  nowhere  in  the  Acts 4 
of  the  Apostles,  and  our  information  respecting  him  is  derived 
solely  from  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 

It  is  stated  in  Galatians  ii,  3  that  he  was  a  Greek,  and  therefore 

Mv,  10,  II,  in  lib.  iii,  cap.  xiv.  aStromata,  i,  cap.  xi. 

'Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxi.     Lib.  de  Pnescrip.,  cap.  xxv. 

4  In  Acts  xviii,  7  mention  is  made  of  Justus,  to  which  some  ancient  MSS.  prefix 
T/roj-  or  Tmof,  making  it  Titus  or  Titius  Justus.  Tischendorf  has  introduced  TU 
noj-  loitorof  (Titus  Justus)  into  the  text.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose,  with  some, 
that  this  is  the  same  person  as  Titus  ;  for  Paul  took  Titus  with  him  to  Jerusalem 
(Gal.  ii,  i)  before  he  preached  in  Corinth,  and  made  the  acquaintance  of  Justus,  who 
Uved  there. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  695 

there  was  no  necessity  for  his  circumcision.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to 
him  calls  him  his  "  genuine  son  after  the  common  TUus  n)en- 
faith,"  from  which  it  is  not  improbable  that  he  was  tioned  only  ID 
converted  by  means  of  the  apostle.1  We  first  meet  Pau1'8 Eplstlt** 
with  him  as  the  companion  of  Paul  on  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  (Gal. 
ii,  i*),  which  is  probably  the  same  visit  mentioned  in  Acts  xv,  2. 
About  seven  years  after  this  Titus  brings  to  Paul  in  Macedonia  in 
telligence  of  the  condition  of  the  Church  at  Corinth,  whither  Paul  ap 
pears  to  have  sent  him  (2  Cor.  vii,  5-16;  xii,  18).  Soon  after  this 
the  apostle  sends  him  with  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  directs  him  to  assist  them  in  making  a  collection  for  the  poor 
saints  in  Jerusalem  (2  Cor.  viii,  6-19).  From  Paul's  Epistle,  it  ap 
pears  that  after  the  apostle's  release  from  the  Roman  imprisonment 
he  took  Titus  with  him  to  Crete,  where  he  was  directed  by  Paul  to 
ordain  elders  in  every  city  (Titus  i,  5).  He  was  also  directed  to 
meet  the  apostle  in  Nicopolis  (ch.  iii,  12).  A  short  time  before  Paul's 
martyrdom,  he  went  to  Dalmatia  (2  Tim.  iv,  10).  Paul  calls  him 
his  "  partner  and  fellow  helper"  (2  Cor.  viii,  23). 

Eusebius  states  that  "  it  is  related  that  Titus  was  bishop  of  the 
churches  of  the  island  of  Crete."  a 

CONTENTS. 

Paul  begins  the  Epistle  with  a  declaration  of  his  apostleship,  and, 
in  addressing  Titus,  states  that  he  left  him  in  Crete  to  set  things  in 
order,  and  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city.  He  describes  the  qualifica 
tions  of  elders,  or  bishops,  and  their  duties.  He  quotes  the  language 
of  one  of  the  poets  of  Crete  (Epimenides)  in  attestation  of  the  bad 
character  of  the  Cretans,  and  exhorts  Titus  to  rebuke  them  sharply, 
and  not  to  give  heed  to  Jewish  fables  and  the  commandments  of 
men  who  turn  from  the  truth.  He  affirms  that,  while  to  the  pure  all 
things  are  pure,  to  the  unbelieving  nothing  is  pure,  and  while  they 
profess  a  knowledge  of  God,  in  works  they  deny  him  (chap.  i).  He 
gives  directions  respecting  the  conduct  of  aged  men  and  women,  and 
the  duty  of  the  latter  to  the  youth  of  their  sex.  He  commands  hirr* 
to  exhort  the  young  men  to  be  sober-minded,  and  to  show  himself 
a  pattern  in  works,  doctrine,  and  speech,  to  exhort  servants  to  be 
faithful  to  their  masters,  and  to  adorn  their  profession.  He  re 
minds  Titus  that  the  gospel  of  Christ  teaches  us  holy  living,  and 
that  we  are  to  look  for  the  glorious  appearance  of  the  Saviour, 
who  gave  himself  to  redeem  and  purify  us  unto  himself  as  a  pecu- 

'Paul  calls  Timothy  his  "genuine  son  in  the  faith,"  though  it  does  not  appeal 
thU  Timothy  was  converted  through  Paul's  instrumentality. 
1  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii,  cap.  iv. 


COO  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

liar  people  (chap.  ii).  He  exhorts  him  to  inculcate  obedience  to 
rulers,  and  the  performance  of  religious  duties  in  a  spirit  of  meek 
ness,  and  to  remind  his  flock  that  they  themselves  were  once  dis 
obedient,  living  in  lusts  and  malice,  but  have  been  redeemed  through 
Christ,  not  by  righteous  deeds,  but  through  the  divine  mercy  and  the 
regeneration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  might  be  heirs  of  eterna! 
life.  He  lays  stress  on  good  works,  and  enjoins  Titus  to  avoid  fool 
ish  questions,  contentions,  and  strivings  about  the  law,  and  to  reject 
a  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admonition.  He  requests  Titus  to 
meet  him  at  Nicopolis,  and  gives  him  several  directions,  sends  a  sal 
utation,  and  asks  him  to  greet  those  that  love  them  (chap.  iii). 

ANCIENT  TESTIMONIES    TO   THE   GENUINENESS    OF  THIS   EPISTLE. 

Clement  of  Rome,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  appears  to 
Clement  and  have  used  this  Epistle  in  the  phrase,  "  Ready  for  every 
other  fathers.  good  work.»»  The  Epistle  is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Ire- 
naeus,2  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,3  and  by  Tertullian.4  It  is  con 
tained  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  all  the  other  ancient  ver 
sions,  and  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori.  Nowhere  in  the  ancient  Church 
do  we  hear  a  doubt  of  its  genuineness.  Jerome  states  that  it  was 
received  as  Paul's  by  Tatian,*  the  founder  of  a  heretical  school,  who 
had  at  an  earlier  period  been  a  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    PHILEMON. 

PHILEMON  was  a  fellow  labourer  of  Paul,  living  at  Colossae.* 
His  slave,  Onesimus,  having  run  away  and  come  to  Rome,  he  is 
there  converted  to  Christ  through  the  instrumentality  of  Paul.  The 
apostle  sent  him  back  to  Philemon  with  this  Epistle,  in  which  Paul, 
with  great  tact,  delicacy,  and  genuine  Christian  sympathy,  intercedes 
for  Onesimus:  "Whom,"  says  he,  "I  have  begotten  in  my  bonds" 

1  Titus  iii,  i  in  sec.  2  of  Clement.  The  Greek  is  the  same  in  both,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  fif  in  Clement  for  irpof  in  Titus.  *  Lib.  i,  cap.  xvi,  3  ;  iii,  cap.  iii,  4. 

*  Whom  (the  Cretan  prophet)  Paul  mentions  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  thus  saying  • 
A  prophet  of  their  own  said  thus,  The  Cretans  are  always  liars,  etc. — Strom.,  i,  xiv. 

*  Adversus  Alarcionem,  v,  cap.  xxi ;  Lib.  de  Anima,  cap.  xx. 
Prologue  to  the  Epistle  to  Titus. 

"  This  appears  from  the  fact  that  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  sends  a 
message  to  Archippus  (chap,  iv,  17) ;  and  in  this  Epistle  Archippus  is  associated 
with  Plu'etnon  in  the  address  ^chap.  i,  2.) 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  697 

(verse  10).  "  For  perhaps  he  therefore  departed  for  a  season,  that 
thou  shouldst  receive  him  forever ;  not  now  as  a  slave,  but  above  a 
slave,  a  brother  beloved,  especially  to  me,  but  how  much  more  unto 
thee,  both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord  ?  If  thou  count  me  there 
fore  a  partner,  receive  him  as  myself,"  etc.  (15-17). 

The  Epis.tle  was  written  during  Paul's  first  imprisonment  in  Rome 
(about  A.  D.  63),  as  is  evident  from  verse  10,  and  from  a  compari 
son  of  those  who  were  with  Paul  at  the  time  (23,  24),  and  those  who 
were  with  him  when  he  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  (i,  7 ; 
iv,  12.  14). 

THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THIS  EPISTLE. 

This  Epistle  is  found  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  and  in  the  Canon 
of  Murutori,  and  was  received  by  Marcion.1  It  is  contained  in  the  an 
cient  Mcmphitic,  Thebaic,  Gothic,  .^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian  versions. 
We  have  not  been  able  to  find  that  it  was  quoted  by  Irenceus  or 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  which  is  not  surprising  when  we  consider 
its  brevity,  and  that  it  does  not  contain  important  doctrine,  and 
is  wholly  of  a  private  character.  It  is,  however,  referred  to  by  Ter- 
tullian  2  as  an  Epistle  of  Paul.  Jerome  remarks  that  some  "  affirm 
that  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  is  either  not  Paul's,  or  if  it  is,  it  con 
tains  nothing  which  can  edify,  and  that  it  has  been  rejected  by  very 
many  ancients,  inasmuch  as  it  is  written  for  the  purpose  of  recom 
mending,  not  teaching.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  defend  its 
genuineness  say  that  it  would  never  have  been  received  in  the  whole 
world  by  all  the  Churches,  unless  it  was  believed  to  be  the  apostle 
Paul's."1  It  is  evident  that  these  doubts  grew  out  of  the  private 
character  of  the  writing.  In  modern  times  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistle  has  been  doubted  by  Baur,  but  defended  by  Hilgenfeld.4 
De  Wette  well  remarks,  "Its  genuineness  is  not  to  be  doubted."* 


CHAPTER  XXXV. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS. 
THE   PERSONS   ADDRESSED. 

TN  the  most  ancient  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  this  Epistle  has 
•*•  the  simple  inscription,  "To  HEBREWS,"  and  its  contents  show 
that  it  is  addressed  to  Christians  of  the  Hebrew  race,  TheEpistionot 
and  is  intended  to  set  forth  the  temporary  character  JJdressed  bto 
of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  of  the  sacrificial  institu-  some  Church. 

1  Tertullian  remarks  that  "the  shortness  of  this  Epistle  enabled  it  to  escape  the 
falsifying  hand  of  Marcion.** — Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  v,  cap.  xxi.  'Ibid. 

*Introd.  to  Philemon.         *  Einleitung,  pp.  328-331.         *  Einleitung,  pp.  304,  305 


698  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

tions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  to  prove  that  the  ceremonial  law  was  to 
end  with  the  appearance  of  Christ,  who  is  made  a  priest  forever  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedek.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  the  great  design 
of  the  Epistle  is  to  establish  Jewish  Christians  in  the  faith  of  the 
gospel,  and  to  render  them  impregnable  to  the  assaults  of  their  un 
believing  countrymen.  But  here  the  question  arises,  Is  the  Epistle 
addressed  to  a  specific  part  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  or  to  the  be 
lievers  in  general  among  the  Hebrews?  To  this  it  must  be  an 
swered,  That  while  the  general  contents,  being  an  exposition  of  the 
Levitical  system,  are  well  suited  to  all  Jewish  Christians,  there  are 
some  passages  which  indicate  that  the  Epistle  was  written  to  Jew 
ish  Christians  of  a  particular  place.  For  we  find  the  writer  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  Epistle  making  the  following  statement :  "  Know 
ye  that  our  brother  Timothy  is  set  at  liberty  ;  with  whom,  if  he  come 
shortly?  I  will  see  you."  The  latter  part  of  this  verse  forbids  the 
supposition  that  the  Epistle  is  a  general  one.  Also  the  statement : 
"  But  call  to  remembrance  the  former  days,  in  which,  after  ye  were 
illuminated,  ye  endured  a  great  fight  of  afflictions  ;  partly,  whilst  ye 
were  made  a  gazing-stock  both  by  reproaches  and  afflictions;  and 
partly,  whilst  ye  became  companions  of  them  that  were  thus  used. 
For  ye  had  compassion  on  those  in  bonds  (roif  deopfoff),1  and  took 
joyfully  the  spoiling  of  your  goods,"  etc.  (chap,  x,  32-34),  seems  to 
refer  to  a  definite  community  of  Christians.  But  what  community 
Not  addressed  was  ^^s '?  Bleek  thinks  the  Epistle  was  intended  for  the 
to  Palestinian  Jewish  Christians  of  Palestine.  But  in  that  case  we 
would  expect  it  to  have  been  written  in  the  Aramaic 
language,  the  vernacular  of  Palestine  at  that  time,  and  not  in  elegant 
Greek.  The  readers  addressed  had  derived  their  knowledge  of  the 
doctrines  of  Christ  from  the  apostles,  or  from  others  who  had  heard 
Christ,  for  in  speaking  of  salvation  the  writer  says,  "  Which  at  the  first 
began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by 
them  that  heard  him,"  etc.  (chap,  ii,  3,  4).  Now,  as  our  Saviour 
lived  and  taught  in  Palestine,  and  as  this  Epistle  was  written  scarcely 
more  than  thirty  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  there  must 
have  been  many  still  living  who  had  seen  and  heard  him,  to  whom 
the  language  of  the  Epistle  was  inapplicable.  In  chap,  vi,  10  the 
readers  are  addressed  as  having  ministered  to  the  saints,  and  as  still 
engaged  in  that  work.  But  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  are  the 
Palestinian  Christians  distinguished  for  ministering  to  the  saints. 
On  the  contrary,  they  themselves  were  to  a  considerable  extent  the 
objects  of  charity,  and  we  find  St.  Paul  making  collections  for  then, 

'Tl»is  is  the  reading  which  both  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  haveadspteJ  in 
critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  699 

and  going  up  to  Jerusalem  with  the  proceeds  (Rom.  xv,  25).  Mace- 
donia  and  Achaia  were  distinguished  for  their  liberality  (Rom. 
xv,  26;  i  Cor.  xvi,  15;  2  Cor.  ix,  2).  Further,  as  the  Palestinian 
Chuflches  were  under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  apostles — of 
whom  Matthew  and  John  remained  in  Palestine  until  a  late  period, 
and  James  (probably  an  apostle)  presided  in  Jerusalem — it  would 
have  been  improper  for  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
who  w>s  not  an  apostle,1  to  address  these  Churches.  Untenable, 
too,  is  the  hypothesis  of  Ebrard,  that  "  the  Epistle  was  intended  for 
a  limited  circle  of  neophytes  in  Jerusalem,  who  had  become  timor 
ous  lest  they  should  be  excluded  from  the  temple  worship,  threat 
ened  to  withdraw  themselves  from  Christianity  (chap,  x,  25),  and 
were  therefore  taken  anew  under  instruction,  for  whose  instruction 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  to  form  a  sort  of  guide."5  There 
is  nothing  in  the  Epistle  to  authorize  this  view,  and  the  objections 
that  lie  against  the  hypothesis  of  its  being  addressed  to  Palestinian 
societies  lie  with  equal  or  greater  force  against  this. 

VVieseler,  Kostlein,  Hilgenfeld,3  and  some  others,  think  the  Epistle 
was  addressed  to  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Alexandria,  but  Bleek  is 
of  the  opinion  that  these  Christians  were  in  no  special  danger  of 
relapsing  into  Judaism  from  any  strong  attachment  to  the  Jewish 
service.  He  remarks  that  the  Alexandrian  Church  teachers  know 
nothing  of  its  having  being  originally  written  for  their  society,  but 
suppose  it  was  intended  for  the  Palestinians.4 

And  here  it  must  be  observed  that  we  know  nothing  of  the  found 
ing  of  a  Christian  Church  in  Alexandria  in  the  first  part  of  the  apos 
tolic  age,  and  we  have,  therefore,  no  ground  for  supposing  that  the 
Epistle  was  directed  to  a  Christian  society  in  that  city.  Various 
other  places  have  been  suggested  as  the  original  destination  of  the 
Epistle,  but  without  sufficient  ground.  It  is  probable  that  it  was 
originally  sent  to  a  community  consisting  chiefly  of  Hebrew  Chris 
tians  in  the  region  of  Asia  Minor,  or  Greece,  but  most  likely  in  the 
former.6 

THE   AUTHOR   OF   THE    EPISTLE. 

Neither  in  the  Epistle  itself,  nor  in  the  superscriptions  of  the  most 
ancient  Greek  copies,  is  the  name  of  the  author  found.  It  is  quoted 

1  This  will  be  made  highly  probable  when  we  discuss  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle. 

*  In  Olshausen's  Comment.,  Kendrick's  translation. 

•Einleitung,  pp.  385-387.  * Einleitung,  p.  6li. 

*  In  chap,  xiii,   23  the  writer  expects,  in  the  company  of  Timothy,  if  he  come 
chortly,  to  see  his  readers,  which  would  seem  to  indicate  that  they  lived  in  the  sphere 
of  Timothy's  labors. 


700  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    S1UDY 

as  Paul's  by  Clement  of  Alexandria.1  He  also  says  that  "the  Epis- 
N>  mention  of  tie  to  the  Hebrews  is  Paul's,  written  to  the  Hebrews 
the  Eptette  £  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  that  Luke  eagerly  trans- 
Belf-  lated  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  Greeks ;  on  which  account 

the  translation  of  this  Epistle  and  the  Acts  show  the  same  style." 
That  the  name  of  the  Apostle  Paul  is  oot  written  at  the  head  of  it  is 
natural;  for  he  says  that  "in  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  who  had  a 
prejudice  against  him  and  suspected  him,  he  very  prudently  did  not 
turn  them  away  from  it  by  putting  his  name  to  it."  a 

Eusebius  speaks  of  a  book  of  Various  Discussions  written  by  Ire 
Opinions  of  the  naeus,  "  in  which  he  mentions  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
the  authorship  brews,"  *  an^  gives  extracts  from  it.  The  expression  in 
of  the  Epistle.  Irenaeus,  "  By  the  word  of  his  power,"  *  seems  borrowed 
from  Heb.  i,  3.  We  can  find  no  other  probable  reference  in  him  to 
the  Hebrews.  This  is  remarkable,  as  his  quotations  of  nearly  all 
the  recognized  Epistles  of  Paul  are  very  numerous  in  his  great  work, 
AGAINST  HERESIES,  and  it  is  very  likely  that  he  did  not  receive  the 
Epistle  as  Paul's.  Tertullian  of  Carthage  says  that  this  Epistle  bore 
the  superscription  of  Barnabas,  and  "  certainly,"  says  he,  "  it  has 
a  better  reception  among  the  Churches  than  the  apocryphal  book  of 
the  Shepherd  "  5  (Hermas).  He  then  proceeds  to  quote  it  as  the 
writing  of  this  companion  of  Paul,  and  gives  what  we  have  in  He 
brews  vi,  4,  6-8,  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  identity  of 
the  Epistle.  Eusebius  remarks  that  Origen,  "  in  his  Homilies  on 
this  Epistle,  makes  the  following  statement :  *  The  style  of  the  Epis 
tle  to  the  Hebrews  has  not  the  rustic  language  of  the  apostle,  who 
acknowledged  that  he  was  "rude  in  speech,"  that  is,  in  style;  but 
that  this  Epistle,  in  the  arrangement  of  its  expressions,  is  purer 
Greek  every  one  capable  of  judging  of  differences  of  style  would 
acknowledge.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  thoughts  of  the 
Epistle  are  admirable,  and  not  inferior  to  the  acknowledged  apos 
tolic  writings — this  also  every  one  would  concede  to  be  true  who 
carefully  reads  the  apostolic  writings.'  After  this  he  adds :  *  In 
giving  my  opinion,  I  would  say  that  the  thoughts  are  the  apostle's, 
but  the  style  and  composition  are  those  of  some  one  who  has  related 
what  the  apostle  said,  and,  as  it  were,  has  written  down,  as  scholia, 

1  Stromata,  vi,  cap.  viii. 

2  This  account  of  the  Epistle  as  given  by  Clement  is  taken  from  the  last  work  of 
Clement  ('YTorvTroffetc)  by  Eusebius  in  his  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  cap.  xiv. 

*  v,  cap.  xxvi.  4  Contra  Hoereses,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxx,  9. 

*  Exstat  enim  ct  Barnabse  titulus  ad  Hebrceos,  adeo  satis  auctoritatis  viro,  ut  quern 
Paulas  juxta  se  constituent  in  abstentiae  tenore.  .  .  .  Et  utique  receptior  apud  EC. 
clesias  Epistola  Barnabse  illo  apocrypho  Pastore  Mcechorum. — Lib.  de  Pudicitia, 
cap.  xx. 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  701 

the  things  said  by  his  instructer.  If,  then,  any  Church  holds  this 
Epistle  as  Paul's,  let  it  be  honoured  also  for  this.  For  net  thought 
lessly  have  the  ancients  handed  it  down  as  Paul's.  But  who  wrote 
the  Epistle — the  truth  God  (only)  knows.  The  account  that  has 
come  down  to  us  is  that,  according  to  some,  Clement,  bishop  of 
Rome,  wrote  the  Epistle  ;  according  to  others,  Luke,  who  wrote  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts.'"  Eusebius  himself  says  :  "There  are  four 
teen  Epistles  of  Paul  evident  and  certain.  But  it  is  not  right  to  be  ig 
norant  of  the  fact  that  some  have  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
affirming  that  it  is  denied  by  the  Roman  Church  to  be  Paul's."2 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria  about  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  in  an  Epistle  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  in  CItation  by 
describing  a  persecution  of  the  Christians,  says  :  "  The  Diouysius  of 
brethren  got  out  of  the  way  and  retired,  and  took  joy-  Ale* 
fully  the  spoiling  of  their  goods,  like  those  to  whom  Paul  bears  tes 
timony."  3  This  passage  is  found  in  Heb.  x,  34,  so  that  he  recognizes 
Paul  as  the  author  of  the  Epistle.  In  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  bishop 
of  Carthage,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  there  are  numer 
ous  quotations  from  the  larger  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  a  considerable 
number  from  his  smaller  Epistles,  except  Titus  and  Philemon,  but 
we  cannot  find  a  vestige  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  of  which  the 
only  satisfactory  explanation  is,  that  Cyprian  did  not  regard  it  as 
Paul's.  According  to  Photius,4  both  Irenaeus  and  Hippolytus  affirmed 
that  this  Epistle  is  not  Paul's. 

Hilary,  bishop  of  Poitiers  in  Gaul  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury,  makes  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  In  commenting  on 
Psalm  xiv,  he  quotes  Hebrews  xii,  22,  as  the  language  of  Paul.  In 
other  places  he  gives  his  quotations  from  this  Epistle  as  the  language 
of  the  "  apostle."  There  is  no  doubt  that  he  recognized  the  Epistle 
as  Paul's.  According  to  Hilary,  the  Arians  alleged  in  support  of 
their  views  "  that  which  Paul  said  to  the  Hebrews  "  (ch.  i.  4).*  But  it 
is  uncertain  whether  they  quoted  it  as  Paul's,  though  this  is  probable. 

Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan  in  the  last  part  of.  the  fourth  century, 
makes  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  whic^  he  calls  Quoted  by  Am- 
"  Scripture;  "°  he  quotes  xii,  6,  with  the  remark,  "  The  broso- 
holy  apostle  says;  "7  chap,  x,  31,  with  the  words,  "The  holy  apostle 
says      8  chap,  xii,  n,  with,  "The  blessed  apostle  says."9     There 

3  In  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi,   25.  a  Ibid.,  iii,  3. 

8  Ibid.,  vi,  cap.  xii.  Photius,  in  the  ninth  century,  says  that  Caius,  presbyter  of 
Rome  (about  A.  D.  200),  they  affirm,  did  not  receive  this  Epistle  as  Paul's  (Co 
dex  48) ;  and  he  states  that  Hippolytus  (about  A.  D.  225)  did  not  accept  it  as  Paul's 
(Codex  121).  *  Codex  ccxxxii.  *De  Trinitate,  lib.  iv,  n.  «  Epistle  xliv. 

T  Sermo  xliv.  8  Ibid.,  xxvi.  •  Ibid.,  xiiL 


702  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

is  no  doubt  that  by  this  language  he  means  Paul,  for  il  is  in  tins 
way  that  he  often  quotes  Paul's  Epistles. 

Jerome  remarks  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  It  is  not  be- 
other  ancient  Heved  to  be  his  (Paul's)  on  account  of  its  difference  of  style 
testimonies.  an(j  language,  but  to  belong,  according  to  Tertullian,  either 
to  Barnabas,  or,  according  to  some,  to  the  evangelist  Luke,  or  to  Clem 
ent,  afterward  bishop  of  the  Roman  Church,  who,  they  say,  was 
Paul's  assistant,  and  that  he  arranged  and  ornamented  the  thoughts 
of  the  apostle  in  his  own  language  ;  or,  indeed,  that  Paul,  because 
he  was  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  did  not  prefix  his  name  to  the  Epistle 
on  account  of  their  dislike  of  him.  As  a  Hebrew  he  had  written 
in  Hebrew,  that  is,  in  his  own  language,  most  eloquently,  so  that 
those  things  which  had  been  eloquently  written  in  Hebrew  were 
more  eloquently  translated  into  Greek,  and  this  appears  to  be  the 
cause  why  it  differs  from  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul."  '  Augus 
tine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  northern  Africa,  attributes  the  Epistle 
to  Paul.3  Chrysostom,  archbishop  of  Constantinople,  received  the 
Epistle  as  Paul's,  and  wrote  a  Commentary  on  it.  The  Epistle 
is  found  in  the  ancient  Peshito-Syriac  version,  made  about  the  mid 
dle  of  the  second  century,  and  its  admission  into  that  version  is 
sufficient  proof  that  it  was  regarded  either  as  the  writing  of  Paul,8 
or  of  some  one  that  stood  in  close  relations  to  an  apostle.  It  was 
also  included  in  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  ^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian 
versions.  In  the  Canon  of  Muratori  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.4  But  no  great  importance  is  to  be  attached 
to  this  omission,  as  the  canon  is  imperfect.  It  is  evident  that  the 
Epistle  must  have  been  well  known  at  Rome  in  the  second  century, 
as  it  is  used  by  Clement  of  that  city  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.* 

From  the  foregoing  history  of  the  Epistle  in  the  first  four  centuries, 
it  is  seen  that  the  weight  of  evidence  is  in  favor  of  its  having  origi 
nated,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  from  the  Apostle  Paul. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  EPISTLE  AS  BEARING  UPON  ITS  AUTHORSHIP. 

The  name  of  Paulas  inserted  in  the  very- beginning  of  all  his  ac- 
Omissionof  the  knowledged  Epistles,  and  if  that  to  the  Hebrews  is  his, 
author's  name.  }ie  departed  from  his  custom  in  not  inserting  his  name, 

1  De  Viris  Illus.     Paulus.  *De  Doctrina  Christiana,  lib.  ii,  cap.  via,  T3. 

1  Bagster's  edition  of  the  Peshito  has  Paul's  name  at  the  head  of  this  Epistle.  But 
Whether  the  ancient  copies  contained  this  superscription  is  uncertain. 

*The  Canon  mentions  an  Epistle  to  the  Alexandrians,  forged  in  the  name  of 
Paul,  in  aid  of  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  and  rejected  by  the  Church,  But  it  is  clear 
that  this  could  not  be  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  some  have  conjectured. 

6  Compare  sec   36  of  the  Epistle  with  Hebrews  i,  3,  etc. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  703 

and  that,  too,  without  assigning  a  reason ;  for  we  cannot  suppose 
that  the  author  of  it  was  either  unknown,  or  wished  to  be,  to  those 
to  whom  he  especially  wrote,  for  he  says:  "Pray  for  us.  ...  But 
I  beseech  you  the  rather  to  do  this  that  I  may  be  restored  to  you 
the  sooner''  (chap,  xiii,  18,  19);  and  he  also  says  he  will  see  them 
in  company  with  Timothy  if  he  come  shortly  (chap,  xiii,  23). 

The  statement  in  rhap.  ii,  3,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  "was  con 
firmed  to  us  by  them  that  heard  him,"  might  possibly,  though  not 
certainly,  apply  to  another  than  Paul,  to  whom  Christ  appeared  in 
person,  and  who  was  commissioned  by  Christ  to  preach  the  gospel, 
which  he  tells  us  he  did  not  receive  "of  man,  neither  was  I  taught 
it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (Gal.  i,  12). 

Bleek  argues  against  the  Pauline  origin  of  the  Epistle  from  sup 
posed  inaccuracies  in  the  statements  respecting  the  Bieek's  objec- 
Jewish  tabernacle  and  temple  service  in  chap.  ix.  The  p^ine Author0 
statement  that  the  holy  of  holies  had  a  golden  altar  of  ship, 
incense  (chap,  ix,  4)  (English  version,  golden  censer]  is  not  to  be 
understood  of  an  altar  standing  within  the  most  holy  place,  but,  as 
argued  by  Ebrard,1  and  explained  by  Robinson  (New  Test.  Lex.), 
though  standing  in  the  outer  sanctuary,  it  "is  here  reckoned  to  the 
inner  sanctuary,  as  standing  directly  before,  and  pertaining  to,  the 
ark  "  (Exod.  xl,  5).  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing,  with  Bleek, 
that  the  author  of  this  Epistle  appears  to  assume  that  the  arrange 
ments  in  the  temple  rebuilt  by  Herod  were  the  same  as  in  the  orig 
inal  service  instituted  by  Moses.  The  author  refers  to  the  ar 
rangements  in  the  original  tabernacle  because  they  were  of  divine 
appointment. 

Respecting  the  style  and  language  of  the  Epistle,  it  must  be  ac 
knowledged  that  the  former  is  more  elegant  than  that  of  peculiarities  oi 
Paul  in  his  other  Epistles,  and  that  the  Greek  is  purer.  8tyle- 
Nor  have  we  any  good  ground  for  supposing  it  to  have  been  orig 
inally  written  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  as  there  is  no  indication 
whatever  in  the  Epistle  itself  that  it  is  a  translation  ;  and,  as  we  have 
already  indicated  the  high  probability  that  it  was  not  addressed  to 
the  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  no  just  reason  existed  for  its  composi 
tion  in  any  other  language  than  Greek.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle 
almost  invariably  follows  the  Septuagint  in  quoting  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  and  in  this  respect  differs  from  Paul.  There  is  also  a  marked 
difference  in  the  manner  of  quoting  the  Old  Testament  in  this  Epis 
tle  from  that  which  is  used  in  the  acknowledged  Pauline  writings. 
In  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians,  the  stand 
ing  formula  in  quoting  the  Old  Testament  is:  "As  it  is  written,"* 
1  Commentary  on  Hebrews.  f  Used  about  nineteen  times  by  Paul 


704  INTRODUCTION   TO     THE  STUDY 

and  sometimes:  "For  it  is  written."1  Nowhere  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  does  its  author  quote  the  Old  Testament  in  this  way, 
but  he  introduces  the  passages  with  the  remark :  "  Wherefore  as  the 
Holy  Ghost  saith  "  (chap,  iii,  7) ;  or  "the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  witness  " 
(chap,  x,  15) ;  or  "he  saith  "  (chap,  viii,  8);  and  "one  in  a  certain 
place  testified!  "  (chap,  ii,  6). 

These  are  some  of  the  points  of  difference  from  Paul's  usual  style 
which  many  thoroughly  evangelical  critics  have  regarded  as  suffi 
cient  proof  that  he  was.  not  the  author  of  the  epistle.  Much  can 
be  said  on  either  side.  Some  have  suggested  Luke,  but  there  is  not 
likeness  enough  to  his  style  to  render  that  probable;  still  more  im 
probable  is  the  supposition  that  the  Epistle  was  written  by  Clement 
of  Rome,  as  his  style  is  entirely  unlike  that  of  the  Hebrews,  and  the 
Epistle  is  used  by  him.  If  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas  is 
genuine,  that  would  exclude  him  from  the  number  of  possible  au 
thors,  as  the  same  writer  could  not  have  written  both.  It  is  very 
probable,  however,  that  Barnabas  is  not  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
attributed  to  him,  and  he  might  have  written  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Silas  (or  Silvanus)  was  an  intimate  and  prominent  com 
panion  of  Paul,  and,  as  far  as  we  know,  may  have  been  its  author. 
A  polios  was  suggested  by  Luther,  and  this  view  is  favoured  by 
Tholuck,  Credner,  Bunsen,  Bleek,2  Hilgenfeld,8  and  others.  Apol- 
los  is  described  in  Acts  xviii,  24  as  a  "Jew  born  at  Alexandria,  an 
eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures."  After  becoming  fully 
acquainted  with  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  "he  mightily  con 
vinced  the  Jews,  and  that  publicly,  showing  by  the  Scriptures  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ "  (Acts  xviii,  28).  We  find  that  he  preached  the 
gospel  with  great  success  at  Corinth,  and  a  party  in  the  Church  in 
that  city  called  themselves  by  his  name  (i  Cor.  i,  12;  iii,  4-6).  It 
is  evident  that  such  a  man  as  this  might  have  written  the  Epistle, 
although  there  is  little  or  nothing  in  it  that  shows  its  author  to  have 
been  an  Alexandrian.  It  may  be  doubted,  too,  whether,  if  the  Epis 
tle  had  been  written  by  an  Alexandrian  of  the  school  of  Philo,  the 
allegorical  method  of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament  would  not 
have  been  pursued  to  a  greater  extent.  We  find  in  this  Epistle  the 
phrase,  "  to  taste  of  death,"  put  for  "  to  die  "  (chap,  ii,  9).  This  is  an 
Aramaic  phrase,  and  occurs  once  in  each  of  the  Gospels,  but  nowhere 
else  in  the  New  Testament  except  in  this  passage.  It  seems  to  us 
very  improbable  that  an  Alexandrian  Jew  would  have  used  it. 

Accordingly,  we  are  unable  to  fix,  with  certainty,  upon  the  author 
of  the  Epistle.  He  must  have  been  a  man  who  stood  high  in  the 
Christian  Church,  otherwise  it  is  not  likely  he  would  have  addressed 
1  Used  about  eight  imesbyPaul.  a  Einleitung,  pp.  603-607.  *  Ibid,  pp.  386-388. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  703 

such  a  writing  to  Hebrew  Christians.  He  was  also  a  friend  and  ac 
quaintance  of  Timothy  (chap,  xiii,  23).  No  one  meets  all  the  con 
ditions  of  certain  authorship;  but  Paul,  despite  variations  from  his 
usage,  makes  the  nearest  approach  to  it. 

THE  TIME   AND   PLACE  OF    ITS    COMPOSITION. 

The  Epistle  was  evidently  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem,  as  there  are  clear  references  to  the  temple  service  Wrltten  ^fora 
as  still  existing.  "For  if  he  (Christ)  were  on  earth,  he  the  destruction 
should  not  be  a  priest,  seeing  that  there  are  priests  that 
offer  gifts  according  to  the  law  "  (chap,  viii,  4).  This  shows  the 
existence  of  the  temple  service.  In  reference  to  the  Jewish  sacri 
fices,  the  author  remarks  :  "  For  then  would  they  not  have  ceased  to 
be  offered  ?  because  that  the  worshippers  once  purged  should  have 
no  more  conscience  of  sins.  But  in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a  re 
membrance  again  made  of  sins  every  year"  (chap,  x,  2,  3).  It  is 
clear  from  this  that  when  the  Epistle  was  written  sacrifices  were  still 
offered.  Reference  to  the  temple  service  as  still  existing  are  also 
found  in  chaps,  ix,  6,7,  25;  xiii,  10,  n.  Had  the  Jewish  temple 
been  already  destroyed '  when  the  Epistle  was  written,  the  author 
could  not  have  failed  to  notice  the  fact,  just  as  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  does,2  and  to  draw  from  it  an  argument  in  proof 
of  its  temporary  character. 

The  antiquity  of  the  Epistle  may  be  also  argued  from  the  state 
ment  that  Timothy  has  been  set  at  liberty  (chap,  xiii,  23),  and  also 
from  its  being  used  by  Clement  of  Rome  s  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Co 
rinthians,  written  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  century. 

The  composition  of  the  Epistle  is  placed  by  Bleek  *  about  A.  D. 
68,  69  ;  by  Wieseler  and  Hilgenfeld,  64-66  ;  De  Wette,   Dateg    of    |ta 
65-67  ;  Tholuck,  63-67  ;  Bunsen,  66  or  67.     It  is  impos-   composition 
sible  to  determine  the  exact  year,  but  it  may  be  assigned 
to  the  interval  between  A.  D.  63  and  68. 5      Respecting  the  place  of 
its  composition,  it  is  difficult  to  reach  any  conclusion. 

The  salutation,  "  They  of  Italy  greet  you  "  (chap,  xiii,  24),  fur 
nishes  no  certain  clue  to  the  place.  It  is  probable,  however,  that 
the  language  indicates  "  those  who  are  in  Italy,"  and  thus  the  writer 
would  appear  to  have  been  somewhere  in  Italy  at  the  time.  If 
Timothy  had  been  imprisoned  in  Rome,  it  was  very  natural  that  the 
author,  in  writing  to  a  Christian  community  somewhere  in  Asia 

1  The  temple  was  destroyed  in  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in  the  summer  of  A.  D.  70. 
"Sec.  xvi,  i,  2.  'In  sec.  36.  *  Einleitung,  p.  616. 

*It  is  ridiculous  to  find  Volkmar  placing  it  A.  D.  Ii6-n3  ;  and  Keira  referring 
It  to  the  first  part  of  the  second  century. 
VOL.  I.— 45 


7CG  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

Minor  or  in  Greece,  acquainted  with  Timothy,  should  inform  them 
of  his  release  (chap,  xiii,  23). 

CONTENTS. 

The  author  sets  forth  the  dignity  of  Christ,  the  importance  of 
giving  heed  to  his  teachings,  his  incarnation,  priesthood,  the  danger 
of  unbelief,  and  the  grounds  of  confidence  in  God  through  the  priest 
hood  of  Christ.  He  argues  the  perpetual  priesthood  of  Christ  from 
his  being  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  and  affirms  the 
ability  of  Christ  to  save  for  ever  all  who  come  to  God  through  him 
(chaps,  i-vii).  He  shows  that  the  old  covenant  was  to  be  abolished, 
and  a  new  one  to  be  substituted  in  its  place,  and  that  the  institu 
tions,  especially  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  old  covenant,  are  typical 
of  the  new  and  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  men  (chaps, 
viii-x,  1 8).  He  exhorts  his  readers  to  steadfastness  in  the  faith,  and 
warns  them  against  apostasy.  He  sets  forth  the  power  of  faith  from 
examples  in  the  Old  Testament,  exhorts  believers  to  fidelity,  and 
contrasts  the  privileges  of  the  new  dispensation  with  'those  of  the 
old  (chaps,  x,  ip-xii).  He  closes  with  an  exhortation  to  the  per 
formance  of  the  practical  duties  of  the  religion  of  Christ  (chap.  xiii). 

THE   CHARACTER   AND   VALUE  OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

The  Epistle  is  an  able  exposition  of  the  symbolical  character  of 
contains  apos-  many  of  the  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  their 
toiio  doctrines,  defects  and  temporary  duration,  the  change  of  the  Mo- 
saic  priesthood  and  the  law,  the  new  covenant,  the  dignity,  efficacy, 
and  permanency  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ. 

It  contains,  too,  the  genuine  apostolic  doctrines.  It  must,  there 
fore,  be  regarded  as  a  valuable  witness  to  the  facts  lying  at  the 
basis  of  Christianity,  and  to  its  primitive  truths.  Thus  we  have 
Christ's  descent  from  Judah  (ch.  vii,  14);  the  holiness  and  harm- 
lessness  of  his  character  (chap,  vii,  26) ;  his  agony  in  the  garden 
(chap,  v,  7);  his  suffering  outside  of  Jerusalem  (chap,  xiii,  12);  his 
resurrection  (chap,  xiii,  20) ;  his  ascension  to  heaven  (chaps,  i,  3 ; 
iv,  14,  etc.) ;  and  the  performance  of  miracles  by  the  first  teachers 
of  Christ's  doctrines  who  had  been  his  hearers  (chap,  ii,  4). 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  707 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

THE    CATHOLIC    EPISTLES. 

rPHE  Catholic  Epistles,1  so  called  from  their  being  general  in  their 
•*•    character,  and  not  addressed  to  special  communities,  are  seven 
in  number,  namely  :  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  two  Epistles  of  Peter, 
the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  three  Epistles  of  John. 

THE    GENERAL    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES. 
THE   PERSON   OF   THE   WRITER. 

The  author  styles  himself  "  James,  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  (chap  i,  i).  And  the  question  arises,  Writer_Jamea 
Which  of  the  persons  of  that  name,  prominent  in  the  the  son  of  AI- 
New  Testament,  is  the  author  of  this  Epistle  ?  We  find  pheus* 
among  the  apostles  two  persons  of  the  name  of  James;  one  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  and  brother  of  John  (Matt,  x,  2  ;  Mark  iii,  17  ;  Luke 
vi,  14;  Acts  xii,  2  ;  the  other  the  son  of  Alpheus  (Matt,  x,  3  ;  Mark 
iii,  18;  Luke  vi,  15),  called  also  "the  Less"  (Mark  xv,  40).  The 
first  of  these,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  was  put  to  death  by  Herod  about 
twelve  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  (Acts  xii,  i,  2).  It  is  by 
no  means  likely  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  Epistle.  After  his 
death  we  find,  in  the  history  in  the  Acts,  and  also  in  Calatians  ii,  9  ; 
i  Cor.  xv,  7,  a  very  prominent  man  among  the  apostles  by  the  name 
ol  James,  and  it  has  been  greatly  disputed  whether  he  is  one  of  the 
twelve  apostles,  the  son  of  Alpheus,  called  also  James  the  Less,  or  one 
of  the  brothers  of  Christ,  called  James,  mentioned  in  Matt,  xiii,  55  ; 
Mark  vi,  3.  In  Galatians  i,  19  Paul  mentions  having  seen  at  Jeru 
salem  James,  the  Lord's  brother. 

The  most  satisfactory  way  to  determine  who  the  James  is  that 
is  so  prominent  in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  after  the  LO^'S  notices 
martyrdom  of  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee  (Acts  xii,  i,  2),  °*  "James." 
is  to  trace  his  continuous  history  through  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — the  work  of  one  author,  Luke,  who  spent 
two  years  in  Jerusalem  (about  A.  D.  59-61),  and  visited  James,  and 
must,  therefore,  have  been  well  acquainted  with  him. 

Now,  in  his  Gospel,  Luke  mentions  only  two  persons  by  the  name 

•And  so  called  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  ii,  cap.  xxiii.    The  title  "Catholic," 
nnirersal.  does  not  suit  Second  and  Third  John 


708  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

of  James,  one  of  whom  he  puts  among  the  twelve  apostles,  and  asso 
ciates  with  John  (chap,  vi,  14;  ix,  28,  54),  and  whom  he  calls  the 
son  of  Zebedee  (chap,  v,  10)  ;  the  other,  James  the  son  of  Alpheus, 
whom  he  also  mentions  as  one  of  the  twelve  apostles  (chap,  vi,  15). 
He  names  among  the  apostles  Judas  the  brother  of  James  (chap, 
vi,  16),  and  mentions  Mary  the  mother  of  James  (chap,  xxiv,  10). 
•  This  James  is,  doubtless,  the  apostle  who  was  the  son  of  Alpheus. 

If  we  now  take  up  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  shall  find  in  the 
list  of  the  apostles,  who  assembled  in  the  upper  room  in  Jerusalem 
after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  James  associated  with  Peter  and  John, 
and  James  the  son  of  Alpheus  (chap,  i,  13).  We  next  find  mention 
of  both  in  Acts  xii,  where  it  is  stated  that  Herod  killed  James  the 
brother  of  John  with  the  sword,  and  that  when  Peter  was  released 
from  prison,  he  said,  "  Go  show  these  things  unto  James,  and  to  the 
brethren."  This,  it  seems,  must  have  been  the  surviving  apostle  of 
this  name,  as  the  historian  before  mentions  no  other  to  whom  the 
reference  can  be  made. 

In  the  assembly  of  the  apostles  and  elders  in  Jerusalem  a  few 
years  after,  when  the  question  whether  the  laws  of  Moses  were  bind 
ing  upon  Gentile  Christians  was  considered  and  answered,  James, 
after  Peter,  addresses  the  assembly,  and  gives  the  decision.  Can 
we  doubt  that  this  is  the  same  James  with  whom  Luke  has  already 
made  us  acquainted  ?  And  who  but  an  apostle  would  have  taken  it 
upon  himself  to  address  that  assembly,  and  to  deliver  that  important 
decision  ?  When  Paul  visited  Jerusalem  (about  A.  D.  38)  he  tells 
us  :  "  Other  of  the  apostles  saw  I  none,  save  James  the  Lord's  brother  " 
(Gal.  i,  19).  This  language  very  naturally  includes  James  in  the 
number  of  the  apostles,  and  the  designation,  "  the  Lord's  brother," 
is  given  to  distinguish  him  from  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  who  at 
that  time  was  still  living.  But  in  writing  after  the  death  of  ^James 
the  sen  of  Zebedee  he  mentions  James  without  any  other  designation 
(i  Cor.  xv,  7  ;  Gal.  ii,  9),  by  which  he  appears  to  name  an  apostle. 

According  to  Hegesippus  Clopas  was  the  brother  of  Joseph.1     In 

A  cousin  of  Je-  J°^in  x^x»  25  Mary,  the  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus,  is 

•us,  imt  called   called  the  wife  of  Clopas ;  but  Clopas  and  Alpheus  are 

regarded  as  two  different  ways  of  writing  in  Greek  the 

Hebrew  *3Sn,a  Chalephay,  so  that  James  the  son  of  Alpheus  is  the 

"In  Euscbius.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  cap.  xi. 

*  The  LXX.,  in  writing  Hebrew  proper  names,  either  altogether  omit  the  gutturai 
sound  of  Chcth  (M)  initial,  as  'Ayyouof  (Ilaggai)  for  ^H  (Chaggay),  or  render  the 
Cheth  by  Chi  (#),  as  Xeftp"v  for  T^r1?-  In  two  instances,  at  least,  Cheth  final  is 
converted  into  the  Greek  Kappa  (/c),  viz.  :  Hit?,  raj3eK  (Gen.  xxii,  24) ;  and  H 
tact*  (Nehemiah  iii,  6).  In  Clopas  the  Cheth  is  changed  into  Kappa  in  Greek. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  TOP 

son  of  Clopaw,  and  accordingly  a  cousin  '  of  Christ.  That  an  apostle 
thus  nearly  related  to  Christ  should  be  called  his  brother  is  not 
strange,  since  Lot  is  called  Ab ram's  brother  (Gen  xiv,  16),  when  in 
fact  he  was  Abram's  brother's  son  (Gen.  xi,  27).  In  Genesis  xiii,  8> 
Abram  says  to  Lot,  We  are  brothers  (arfeA^ot,  in  LXX).  Robinson 
gives  us  the  second  definition  of  a<JeA</>oc,  "  a  kinsman,  a  relative,  in 
any  degree  of  blood  "  (Lex.  New  Test.  Greek). 

If  there  had  been  in  the  Church  a  prominent  uterine  brother  of 
Christ  named  James,  the  designation,  "  the  Lord's  brother,"  would, 
in  all  probability,  have  referred  to  him  ;  but  in  the  absence  of  prooi 
of  the  existence  of  such  a  brother,  and  as  we  find  an  apostle  of  that 
name  a  cousin  of  Christ,  it  is  not  difficult  to  believe  that  he  may 
sometimes  have  been  called  by  the  honourable  designation,  *'  the 
Lord's  brother." 

Hegesippus,8  who  in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century  wrote  of 
the  affairs  of  the  Church,  speaks  of  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord*, 
called  the  Just,  who  received  with  the  apostles  the  government  of 
the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  and  suffered  martyrdom  before  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  city.  He  does  not  state  whether  this  James  was  an 
apostle.  Also,  Josephus 8  mentions  James  the  brother  of  Jesus,  who 
was  called  Christ,  and  his  martyrdom. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  of  considerable 
authority  in  Jewish-Christian  affairs,  James  the  Just  appears  as  one 
of  those  who  sat  at  the  table  with  the  Lord  before  his  crucifixion, 
and  to  whom  he  appeared  after  his  resurrection.  From  this  it  seems 
that  he  was  regarded  as  an  apostle.  In  a  fragment  of  Papias,  Mary, 
the  wife  of  Cleophas  or  Alpheus,  appears  as  the  mother  of  James, 
bishop  and  apostle.4  Clement  *  of  Alexandria  regarded  James  the 
Just,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  an  apostle.  This  was  also  the  view  ot 
Jerome,9  and  of  Chrysostom,  it  would  seem.7  On  the  other  hand1, 
Origen  8  distinguishes  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (Matt,  xiii,  55), 
afterward  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  from  James  the  Less,  an  apostle. 

Among  the  moderns,  Bleek '  regards  James  the  brother  of  the 
Lord  as  no  apostle.  This  view  is  favoured  by  Neander  lo  and  De 
Wette,11  and  adopted  by  Hilgenfeld.18  On  the  other  hand,  Hug  " 


'That  the  mother  of  James  the  Less,  or  son  of  Alpheus,  was  the  sister  of  Mary 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  appears  from  a  comparison  of  John  xix,  25  ;  Matt,  xxvii.  56 
and  Mark  xv,  40.  "In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  xxiii. 

"Antiq.,  xx,  cap.  ix,  I.  4In  Patrum  Apostol.  Opera,  Leipzig,  1875. 

'In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  i.  •  De  Viris  IIIus.     Jacobus. 

'Comment,  in  Gal.  i,  19.  "Comment,  in  Malt,  xiii,  55. 

•Einleitung,  624-627.  "Planting  and  Training  of  the  Church,  pp.  350-351, 

"Einleitung,  p.  367.         "Einleitung,  520-527.         "  Einleitung,  vol.  ii,  445. 


710  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

regards  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  and  James  the  son  of  Alpheua 
as  one  person,  who  is  placed  among  the  brothers  of  Jesus  in  Matthew 
xiii,  55.  Schneckenburger  has  also  advocated  the  hypothesis  of 
one  James,  while  Wieseler  distinguishes  between  James  the  brother 
of  the  Lord  and  the  apostle  of  that  name.  , 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

The  writer  styles  himself  "  James,  a  servant  of  God,  and  of  the 
This  Epistle  kord  Jesus  Christ."  This  modest  title  for  one  who  was 

found  in  an-  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and,  in  accordance  with  what  we 

dent  versions,     i  i      i  i       •  •  i 

have  argued,  also  an  apostle,  impresses  us  at  once  with 

the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle. 

It  is  contained  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version,  where  it  bears  the 
inscription,  "The  Epistle  of  James  the  Apostle."  It  is  also  found 
in  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  ^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian  versions,  but  is 
wanting  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori.  In  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome 
to  the  Corinthians  there  seem  to  be  some  references  to  this  Epistle. 
The  allusion  to  the  double-minded  man  (<J/Vv;t0f)  in  Clement,  and  the 
statement  that  Abraham  was  called  the  friend  of  God,  and  the  refer 
ence  to  Rahab  (sees.  10-1 2),  seem  to  be  based  on  James  i,  8 ;  ii,  23,  25. 
In  Hermas,  the  Pastor,  a  work  written  not  later  than  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  we  find  a  reference  to  James  iv,  7  :  "It  is  possi 
ble  to  wrestle  with  the  devil,  but  it  is  not  possible  to  conquer  him. 
For  if  you  resist  him,  he  will  fly  confounded  from  you."  *  Irenaeus  * 
quotes  (chap,  ii,  23) :  "  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  was  called  the  friend  of  God." 
In  Clement  of  Alexandria  we  can  find  no  certain  use  of  this  Epistle. 
Eusebius,  however,  states,  that  Clement  made  short  expositions  of 
Jude  and  the  rest  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,8  which,  of  course,  includes 
James.  There  is  no  certain  reference  in  Tertullian  *  to  this  Epistle, 
nor  can  we  find  a  trace  of  it  in  Cyprian  (about  A.  D.  250). 

Origen,  in  commenting  on  John  viii,  24,  remarks :  "  For  if  faith  is 
James  cited  by  meant,  but  without  works,  such  a  faith  is  dead,  as  we 
Origen.  read  in  the  Epistle  that  bears  the  name  of  James. "  *  With 

this  exception,  we  cannot  find  a  trace  of  this  Epistle  in  the  numer 
ous  quotations  of  the  New  Testament  in  Origen 's  Commentary  on 
John,  nor  do  we  find  a  single  one  from  this  Epistle  in  his  Commen 
tary  on  Matthew.  But  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 

1  Mandata, xii,  cap.  v.        "Lib.  iv,  cap.  xvi,  2.  *In  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  cap.  xiv 

*  "  Whence,"  says  he,  "  was  Abraham  counted  the  friend  of  God,"  etc.  It  is  prob 
able  that  Tertullian  had  in  his  mind  James  ii,  23,  although  in  Isaiah  xli,  3  God 
says,  "  Abraham  my  friend."  *  Tom.  xix,  6. 


OF   THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  711 

Romans,  which  exists  only  in  the  Latin  version  of  Rufinus,  the 
Epistle  of  James  is  twice  quoted  in  chap,  v,  once  as  the  language  of 
James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  other  instance  as  that  of 
the  Apostle  James.1  But  Rufinus  does  not  profess  to  follow  closely 
the  original  text  of  Origen,  and  states  in  the  preface  that  the  Com- 
mentary  on  the  Romans  has  been  interpolated.  In  this  case,  the 
quotations  from  James  prove  nothing.  Also  in  the  Latin  translation 
of  Origen's  Homilies  on  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  by  Rufinus,  James 
iv  7,  i,  8,  and  v,  14  are  quoted  as  the  language  of  the  apostle  James. 
But  here  it  is  impossible  to  determine  what  belongs  to  Origen  him 
self.  It  seems  very  probable  that  he  attached  but  little  importance 
to  the  Epistle.  * 

Eusebius,  speaking  of  James,  remarks:  "The  first  of  the  Epistles 
called  Catholic  is  said  to  be  his.  But  it  must  be  known  Eusebius  and 
that  it  is  spurious  (votfeverai),3  since  not  many  of  the  j^1^'8^^ 
ancients  have  mentioned  it ;  nor  that  called  the  Epistle  authenticity  of 
of  Jude,  which  is  also  one  of  the  seven  called  Catholic.  "^  EpMle- 
Nevertheless,  we  know  that  these  also,  with  the  rest,  are  received  as 
canonical3  in  most  Churches."4  In  another  place  he  puts  it  among 
the  disputed  writings  6  (AvrtAeyrfjueixM). 

Jerome,  speaking  of  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  whom  he  con 
siders  to  be  the  cousin  of  Christ,  says :  "  He  wrote  only  one 
Epistle,  which  belongs  to  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  and  which 
is  asserted  to  have  been  put  forth  by  some  one  else  under  his 
name,  but  has  gradually  obtained  authority  in  the  course  of 
time."  *  It  would  seem  from  this  that  he  was  not  quite  sure  of  its 
genuineness. 

Didymus,  who  was  head  of  the  Catechetical  School  of  Alexandria 
in  the  last  part  of  the  fourth  century,  wrote  an  exposi-  An  exposlt}oa 
tion  of  this  Epistle,  which  he  attributed  to  the  Apostle  of  James  by 
James.  It  was  received  by  Athanasius,7  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,8  Cyril"  of  Jerusalem,  Chrysostom,10  Augustine,11  and  Epipha- 
nius,ia  but  was  rejected  by  Theodore 13  of  Mopsuestia.  But  even  those 

I  He  also  gives  some  other  passages  from  James,  without  naming  the  source. 
'The  word  has  the  meaning,  to  be  spurious  and  to  be  deemed  spurious.     But  the 

context  requires  the  first  meaning,  since  it  expresses  the  judgment  of  Eusebius. 

3  The  Greek  is  ded7j/j.oai£V[iivac,  to  be  of  a  public  character,  and  is  defined  by  Soph- 
oclc?,  canonical.     (Greek  Lex.,  Rom.  and  Byzant.  Periods). 

4  Hist.  Eccles.,  ii,  cap.  xxiii.         B  Ibid.,  iii,  cap.  xxv.         *De  Viris  Illus.    Jacobus. 
7  In  Vita  Antonii  he  quotes  James  i,  15  20,  "  As  it  is  written,"  and  chap,  v,  13, 

with  the  same  formula  in  the  Epistle  to  Marcellinus.  *  1105. 

9  Catechesis  iv,  De  Decem  Dogmatibus,  xxxvi.         10  Synopsis  of  Sacred  Scriptures, 

II  De  Doctr.  Christ.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  viii,  13.  "  Hasresis  Ixxvii,  sec.  27. 
"Leontius  Byzant.,  Contra  Nestor  et  Eut.,  iii,  14. 


712  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

fathers  who  accepted  it  made  but  little  use  of  it.  We  have  found  no 
extracts  from  it  in  the  works  of  Ambrose  and  Hilary,  though  it  is 
possible  that  they  may  have  quoted  it.  At  the  time  of  the  Refor 
mation  Erasmus  expressed  himself  skeptically  concerning  it,  and  Lu- 
opinion  enter-  ther  remarks  on  it :  "  This  Epistle  of  St.  James,  although 

lai???,of  thls   it  vvas  rejected  by  the  ancients  [this  remark,  as  we  have 

Epistle  by  Eras-  J 

mus  and  LU-  already  seen,  is  only  partially  true],  I  commend,  and  con- 

her*  sider  good,  for  the  reason  that  it  lays  down  no  human 

doctrine,  and  rigorously  follows  the  law  of  God.  But  that  I  may 
give  my  own  opinion  without  injury  to  any  one,  I  do  not  regard  it 
as  the  writing  of  an  apostle ;  and  this  is  my  reason :  In  the  first  place, 
because,  in  palpable  contradiction  to  St.  Paul  and  all  the  other 
Scriptures,  it  attributes  justification  to  works,  and  says:  Abraham 
was  justified  by  his  works  when  he  offered  up  his  son,  whereas  St. 
Paul,  on  the  contrary,  teaches  (Rom.  iv,  2,  3)  that  Abraham  was 
justified  without  works.  .  .  .  But  this  James  does  nothing  but  ad 
here  to  the  law  and  its  works,  and  blends  things  in  such  a  confused 
way,  that  it  seems  to  me  he  was  a  truly  pious  man  who  composed 
some  sentences  from  a  disciple  of  the  apostles,  and  put  them  upon 
paper.  Or  perhaps  it  is  an  extract  from  his  preaching,  written  down 
by  some  one  else."  Again,  in  his  Preface  to  the  New  Testament  he 
says :  "  The  Epistle  of  St.  James  is  really  an  Epistle  of  Straw  (eine 
rechte  stroherne  epistel)  in  comparison  with  them  (in  comparison 
with  the  writings  of  John,  Paul,  Peter),  for  it  contains  nothing  of  an 
evangelical  stamp."  ' 

This  assertion  of  Luther,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
The  ^rounder  works,  as  set  forth  in  this  Epistle,  flatly  contradicts  Paul, 
uon^janies  who  teaches  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  is  not  well 
considered.  founded.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle,  discusses  the  question  of 
pardon  and  justification  of  the  sinner  before  God,  and  shows  that 
forgiveness  is  to  be  obtained  only  through  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  But  he  clearly  implies,  as  the  fruit  of  this  faith,  a  full  com 
pliance  with  the  moral  law,  a  complete  surrender  of  the  soul  to 
Christ,  and  he  has  not  the  least  reference  to  a  dead,  inoperative 
faith. 

The  question  which  James  proposes  is  :  "  What  doth  it  profit,  my 
brethren,  though  a  man  say  he  have  faith,  and  have  not  works  ?  Can 
faith  save  him?"  Can  any  one  suppose  for  a  moment  that  Paul 
would  have  answered  that  a  dead  faith,  followed  by  no  compliance 
with  the  moral  law,  would  save  a  man  ?  Who  insists  more  earnestly 
than  he  upon  the  importance  of  a  full  obedience  to  the  moral  law? 

'These  passages  from  Luther's  works  are  quoted  by  De  Wette  (Einleitnng 
»>P-  374.  375)>  from  whom  we  have  borrowed  them. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  713 

He  declares  that  God  "will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
deeds  "  (Rom.  ii,  6),  and  warns  us  against  the  idea  of  living  in  sin 
that  grace  may  abound  (Rom.  vi).  How  clearly  does  he  contrast 
the  holy  virtues  of  the  spiritual  life,  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  with  the 
works  of  the  unregenerate  man  (Gal.  v,  19-23),  and  that,  too,  after 
contending  in  the  strongest  manner  for  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  ?  Now  Paul  certainly  would  have  assented  to  the  doctrine 
of  this  Epistle  :  "  Faith,  if  it  hath  not  works,  is  dead,  being  alone." 
James  contends  that  faith  is  to  be  proved  by  works  (chap,  ii,  18); 
.Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  at  first,  and  afterward  by  complying 
with  the  divine  command  to  offer  up  Isaac.  His  faith,  without  obe 
dience,  would  have  profited  him  nothing.  Here  Paul  and  James  would 
certainly  agree.  These  two  teachers  set  forth  the  different  sides,  or 
the  two  opposite  poles,  of  the  same  great  truth.  How  strongly  does 
Paul  exhibit  the  two  apparently  opposing  doctrines  of  divine  sov 
ereignty  and  free-will,  even  in  the  same  verse  uttering  truths  appar 
ently  contradictory:  "Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling:  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure  "  (Phil,  ii,  12,  13). 

In  fact,  James  does  not  at  all  discuss  the  question  how  a  sinner 

shall  obtain  forgiveness,  but   how  a  Christian  shall  live.    , 

0  .  Agreement  be- 

The  spirit  which  James  condemns  is,  as  Neander  well  tweenrauiand 
observes,  that  "which  substituted  a  lifeless,  arrogant  James- 
acquaintance  with  the  letter  for  the  genuine  wisdom  inseparable 
from  the  divine  life — which  prided  itself  in  an  inoperative  knowledge 
of  the  law,  without  paying  any  attention  to  the  practice  of  the  law — 
which  placed  devotion  in  outward  ceremonies,  and  neglected  that 
devotion  which  shows  itself  in  works  of  love,"  a  habit  of  mind  which 
attached  especial  importance  to  faith  in  Jehovah  and  in  the  Messiah, 
but  "which  left  the  disposition  unchanged."1 

It  is  but  a  small  portion  of  James  that  touches  upon  justification, 
and  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  Epistle  has  any  refer 
ence  to  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  In  fact,  it  is  in 
tended  for  another  class  of  persons.  His  address  is  "to  the  twelve 
tribes  who  are  in  the  dispersion,  greeting,"  while  Paul's  Epistles 
were  for  the  most  part  directed  to  Gentile  Christians.  And  this 
fart,  that  the  Epistle  is  addressed  to  Jewish  believers  only,  accounts 
for  its  having  been  but  little  known  among  the  Gentile  Christians  in 
the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Church. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Epistle  inconsistent  with  the  supposition 
that  it  was  written  by  James,  who  confined  his  labors  to  Jerusalem. 

'Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church  by  the  Apostles,  p.  358,  Ryland's 
Translation. 


714 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 


Indeed,  the  whole  tone  indicates  a  person  in  the  position  of  James. 
It  is  in  Greek,  but  this  is  not  strange  when  we  remember  that  it  was 
addressed  to  Jewish  believers  in  Christianity  dispersed  through  the 
world,  many  of  whom  would  not  have  understood  the  Aramaic,  the 
vernacular  of  Palestine.  The  Greek  is  quite  good,  better  than  might 
have  been  expected  from  one  in  James*  position,  though  it  is  not 
improbable  that  he  may  have  obtained  assistance  in  its  composition. 
It  is  possible,  too,  that  he  may  have  been  brought  up  in  the  use  of 
Greek  in  some  part  of  Palestine. 

He  uses  the  phrase,  "  Lord  of  Sabaoth,"  once  (chap.  v.  4),  which 
no  one  but  a  Jew  would  be  likely  to  use,  and  which  occurs 
peculiarities  of  elsewhere  in  tne  New  Testament  only  in  a  quotation 
James*  lan-  from  the  Old  (Romans  ix,  29).  He  makes  great  use  of 
the  Old  Testament,  refers  to  the  early  and  latter  rain 
(chap,  v,  7)  characteristic  of  Palestine,  and  to  the  fountains  of  sweet 
and  of  bitter  water  (chap,  iii,  1 1)  peculiar  to  the  same  region.  All  this 
indicates  a  Jew  of  Palestine.  He  modestly  styles  himself  **  the 
servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  which  is,  however,  not 
inconsistent  with  his  being  an  apostle,  as  Paul  so  styles  himself 
(Phil,  i,  i). 

There  is  no  good  reason  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  the 
NO  reasonable  Epistle,  which  has  been  defended  by  Bleek  1  and  Ne- 
RenulnenessS  ander  *  as  belonging  to  James,  who  is  distinguished  in 
James.  the  Acts,  and  appears  prominent  in  the  Epistle  of  Paul 

to  the  Galatians.  De  Wette  remarks  that  doubts  on  dogmatic 
grounds  were  raised  against  the  Epistle  at  the  time  of  the  Refor 
mation.  But  since  its  [supposed]  contradiction  of  Paul  has  been 
removed  or  softened,  "its  genuineness  is  almost  universally  ac 
knowledged."  *  The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  is  denied  by  Hilgen- 
feld,  who  refers  its  composition  to  the  time  of  Domitian4  (A.  D. 
81-96). 

But  the  traces  of  an  age  subsequent  to  the  time  of  James  are  by 
migenfeid's  no  means  clear,  or  even  probable.  Hilgenfeld  follows 
objection  from  Zeller  in  maintaining  that  James  ii,  12,  "Blessed  is  the 

Internal      evl-  *  _  , 

dence  consid-  man  that  endureth  temptation,  for  when  he  is  tried,  he 
ered-  shall  receive  the  crown  of  life,  which  the  Lord  hath 

promised  to  them  that  love  him,"  is  based  on  Rev.  ii,  10,  "  Be  thou 
faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  crown  of  life;"  and  as 
the  Apocalypse  was  not  written  earlier  than  A.  D.  68,  the  Epistle 
must  have  been  written  after  the  death  of  James.  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  the  phrase,  "  the  crown  of  life,"  was  borrowed 


1  Einleitung,  pp.  638-642. 
'Einleitung,  p.  374. 


*  Planting  and  Training,  pp.  357-367. 

4  Einleitung,  pp.  540-542. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  715 

from  the  Apocalypse.  Nothing  was  more  common  in  the  ancient  world 
than  the  bestowal  of  crowns,  of  gold1  and  of  other  material,  as  marks 
of  honor,  both  in  Athens  and  in  Rome.  To  this  prize  of  honor  we 
find  various  references  in  the  apostolic  writings.  Paul  speaks  of  those 
who  strive  "  to  obtain  a  corruptible  crown  ;  but  we  an  incorruptible" 
(crown)  (i  Cor.  ix,  25).  What  is  this  but  a  crown  of  life?  In  2  Tim. 
iv,  8  he  speaks  of  "  the  crown  of  righteousness."  In  i  Peter  v,  4  we 
nave  "the  unfading  crown  of  glory."  James  has,  instead  of  "  right 
eousness"  and  "  glory,"  "  life  "  ("  the  crown  of  life  "),  and  this,  forsooth, 
fce  must  have  borrowed  from  the  Apocalypse,  though  "crown  "is 
one  of  the  most  common  words  in  the  New  Testament.1  Equally 
unnecessary  is  it  to  refer  the  "  firstfruits  "  in  this  Epistle  (ch.  i,  18)  to 
Rev.  xiv,  4,  where  mention  is  made  of  "  the  firstfruits  "  "unto  God 
and  to  the  Lamb,"  since  Paul  in  various  places  speaks  of"  firstfruits," 
in  the  sense  of  spiritual  ingatherings  ;  as  %kthe  firstfruits  of  Achaia  " 
(Rom.  xvi,  5)  ;  "  If  the  firstfruits  be  holy,"  etc.  (chap,  xi,  16).  He 
also  calls  Christ  "  the  firstfruits  of  them  that  slept "  (i  Cor.  xv,  20). 
The  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Corinthians  were  written  be 
fore  A.  D.  60,  from  some  of  which  James  might  have  derived  the 
idea  of  a  "  crown  of  life  "  and  "  firstfruits,"  though  it  is  not  likely 
they  were  borrowed  from  any  New  Testament  writer.  But  if  the 
coincident  phrase  and  word  in  James  and  in  the  Revelation  are  to 
be  considered  original  only  in  one  of  them,  and  borrowed  in  the 
other,  why  may  not  the  author  of  the  Revelation  have  borrowed 
them  from  James? 

There  seems  to  be  a  clear  indication  in  the  Epistle  that  it  was 
written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  "  For  the  James'  Epistle 
coming  of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh  "  (chap,  v,  8).  Like-  S^SSrS 
wise  the  words,  "  Ye  have  condemned,  ye  have  murdered  of  Jerusalem, 
the  Just  One,  and  he  does  not  resist  you  "  (ch.  v,  6),  clearly  refers  to 
the  condemnation  and  crucifixion  of  Christ,  for  which  the  Jews  had 
not  yet  suffered,  which  shows  that  Jerusalem  had  not  yet  been  de 
stroyed  ;  so  in  Acts  xxii,  14  Christ  is  called  "  the  Just  One;  "  also  in 
Acts  iii,  14.  Nor  is  there  anywhere  in  the  Epistle  any  indication 
leading  to  a  date  subsequent  to  the  martyrdom  of  James.  The  as 
sertion  of  Hilgenfeld^that  James  ii,  6,  7  ;  v,  6,  presupposes  that  ju 
dicial  sentences  had  already  been  pronounced  upon  Christians,  as 

1  The  classical  scholar  will  call  to  mind  the  Oration  of  Demosthenes  on  the  Crown. 
Among  the  Romans  the  mural,  civic,  obsidional,  and  triumphal  crowns  were  be 
stowed. 

*  In  Rev.  ii,  10  "  the  crown  of  life  "  is  promised  by  Christ  to  those  who  are  "  faithful 
unto  death  ;"  but  in  James  i,  12  to  those  who  love  the  Lord,  and  which  may  re/ei 
lo  God  the  Father,  as  in  James  v,  10,  11. 


716  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

such,  is  destitute  of  all  probability;  and  equally  groundless  is  his 
statement,  that  such  sentences  were  not  pronounced  upon  Chris 
tians  before  the  time  of  Domitian,  for  Nero  punished  them  as  incen 
diaries.  James  ii,  6,  7  has  reference  simply  to  the  oppression  of  the 
poor  by  the  rich,  especially  before  courts  of  justice,  as  any  one  may 
see  by  referring  to  the  passage.  The  rich,  too,  were  generally  reject 
ers  of  Christ,  while  the  believers  were  mostly  from  the  poor.  Chap 
ter  v,  6  refers,  as  we  have  already  stated,  to  the  condemnation  and 
crucifixion  of  Christ. 

Nor  did  Nero  punish  Christians  only  as  incendiaries,  since  Tacitus 
states  respecting  their  conviction  and  punishment :  "  They  were  con 
victed  not  so  much  on  the  charge  of  burning  (Rome)  as  on  account 
of  their  hatred  of  the  human  race."  *  This  hatred  of  the  human 
race  was  their  contempt  for  the  gods  of  the  pagan  world,  and  for  the 
abominable  rites  connected  with  pagan  worship. 

THE   TIME   OF    ITS   COMPOSITION. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  proofs  that  this  Epistle  was  writ 
ten  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  as  James  suffered  mar 
tyrdom  a  few  years  before  the  destruction  of  that  city,  the  Epistle 
was  most  probably  written  some  time  before  A.  D.  64,  but  the  pre 
cise  date  cannot  be  determined. 

The  Epistle  would  seem  to  indicate  that  Christianity  had  already 
The  Epistle  been  in  existence  for  a  considerable  number  of  years, 
Slhaiei^of  an^  there  seems  no  good  reason  to  refer  it,  as  Neander 
Christianity.  does,  to  a  "  tiine  preceding  the  separate  formation  of 
Gentile  Christian  Churches,  before  the  relation  of  Gentiles  and  Jews 
to  one  another  in  the  Christian  Church  had  been  brought  under  dis 
cussion,"  a  that  is,  before  the  Jerusalem  Council,  held  about  A.  D.  50. 
There  is  no  good  ground,  however,  for  placing  it  with  Bleek  *  at 
A.  D.  63,  64.  The  reference  made  in  chap,  ii,  7  to  blaspheming  Christ 
does  not  imply  that  the  followers  of  Christ  were  already  called  Chris 
tians,  as  the  phrase,  "by  which  ye  are  called  "'  is  very  similar  to  the 
construction  in  Acts  xv,  17,  "upon  whom  my  name  is  called." 

• 

1  Haud  perinde  in  crimine  incendii,  quara  odio  humani  generis,  convict!  sunt — 
Annalium,  lib.  xv,  cap.  xliv. 

a  Planting  and  Training,  etc.,  p.  363.  *  Einleitung,  p.  632. 

4  The  Greek  in  James  ii,  7  is  TO  xaAdv  ovofta  TO  lirtK%7i$ev  etf  vpus ,  the  honorable 
name  which  is  called  upon  yoti,  based  on  the  Hebrew,  "  ^2>  ta|??~'  ^7^5»  my  name  is 
tailed  upon  any  thing,  i.  e.,  my  name  is  given  to  it,  it  is  called  mine,  implying  prop 
erty,  relation,"  etc.  (Gesenius,  sub  voce  X"lp3).  Thus  the  passage  refers  to  their  be 
ing  the  people  of  Christ,  not  necessarily  implying  that  they  were  called  Christ  fans 
UptCTiavol). 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  717 

The  place  in  which  the  Christians  assembled  for  worship  is  called 
in  chap,  ii,  2  a  synagogue.  But  this  does  not  imply  that  the  Jewish 
believers  were  not  yet  separated  from  the  unbelievers  in  worship. 
James  simply  calls  the  Christian  assembly  by  the  same  name  as  the 
Jewish.  Just  as  the  Greeks  gave  to  the  Christian  assembly  the  name 
ecclesia,  which  had  denoted  an  assemblage  of  citizens  in  Athens  for 
political  purposes.  The  Epistle  was  probably  written  between  A.  D. 
50  and  63,  undoubtedly  at  Jerusalem,  where  James  lived  at  that 
time,  and  long  before. 

CONTENTS. 

The  author  exhorts  his  readers  to  rejoice  in  the  midst  of  divers 
temptations,  insists  upon  unwavering  faith  and  confidence  in  God, 
the  Giver  of  all  good,  enjoins  upon  them  to  bridle  the  tongue, 
to  be  doers  of  the  word,  and  not  hearers  only,  and  shows  them  in 
what  true  religion  consists  (chap.  i).  He  warns  his  readers  against 
showing  partiality  to  the  rich,  urges  them  to  keep  the  whole  moral 
law,  especially  the  royal  law  to  love  one's  neighbour  as  one's  self,  and 
shows  that  men  are  not  justified  by  faith  only  (chap.  ii).  He  next 
discusses  the  importance  of  bridling  the  tongue  (chap.  iii).  He  shows 
that  lust  is  the  cause  of  war,  denounces  the  friendship  of  the  world, 
recommends  humility,  submission  to  God,  exhorts  them  to  resist  the 
devil,  to  draw  nigh  unto  God,  and  to  purify  themselves.  He  warns 
them  against  evil  speaking,  and  the  sin  of  presuming  upon  the  future 
(chap.  iv).  He  describes  wicked  rich  men  and  their  impending 
punishment,  and  exhorts  the  brethren  to  be  patient  until  the  coming 
of  the  Lord.  He  warns  them  against  swearing,  dwells  upon  the 
efficacy  of  prayer,  and  points  out  the  deep  importance  and  glorious 
result  of  converting  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  (chap.  v). 

CHARACTER    OF   THE    EPISTLE. 

From  the  foregoing  synopsis,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Epistle  is  of 
an  eminently  practical  character,  avoiding  the  discussion  of  profound 
theological  truths,  and  insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  possessing  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  practicing  its  precepts.  It  everywhere 
breathes  the  spirk  of  deep  piety  and  resignation  to  God. 


713  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 


I 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

THE     EPISTLES     OF     PETER. 

THE   PERSON    OF   THE   APOSTLE. 

N  the  Gospels,  and  in  the  first  part  of  the  Acts,  Peter  appears  as  the 
most  prominent  apostle.  He  was  of  Bethsaida  (John  i,  44),  a 
town  on  the  west  coast  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  a  fisherman  by  oc 
cupation  (Matt,  iv,  18;  Mark  i,  16  ;  Luke  v,  3,  4).  He  was  brought 
by  his  brother  Andrew  to  Christ  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Lord's 
ministry.  To  his  original  name  of  Simon  Christ  added  that  of 
Cephas  (N3O,  Kepha),  an  Aramaic  word  meaning  Rock,  of  which  the 
Greek  is  Petros,  Peter.1  After  this  introduction  to  Christ  Peter  still 
pursued  his  former  vocation,  and  we  find  that  when,  at  the  Lord's 
command,  he  had  cast  his  net  into  the  sea,  and  caught  a  great  mul 
titude  of  fishes  —  though  he  had  toiled  all  the  previous  night  and 
taken  nothing  —  he  threw  himself  down  at  the  knees  of  Jesus,  saying, 
"  Depart  from  me;  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord."  To  this  Christ 
replied,  "  Fear  not  ;  from  henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  men."  After  this 
he  left  all  and  followed  him  (Luke  v,  4-11).  He  became  one  of  the 
most  intimate  disciples  of  Christ.  We  find  him  with  James  and  John 
on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  and  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane. 
He  showed  his  zeal  for  his  Master,  when  arrested  in  the  garden,  by 
drawing  his  sword  and  cutting  off  the  right  ear  of  the  servant  of  the 
high  priest  (John  xviii,  10).  He  was  always  ready  to  proclaim  his 
faith  in  Christ.  When  many  disciples  left  Jesus,  he  put  the  question 
to  the  twelve  :  "  Will  ye  also  go  away  ?  "  to  which  Peter  promptly 
answered  :  "  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the  words  of 
Giving  of  Pe-  eternal  life  "  (John  vi,  67,  68).  Upon  another  occasion, 
ter's  surname.  when  Christ  asked  his  disciples  :  u  Whom  say  ye  that  I 
am  ?  "  Peter  answered  :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God."  In  the  Saviour's  reply  to  this,  he  declares  >  "  I  say  also  unto 


J,  Kepha,  is  used  in  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  (Chal- 
dee  versions  of  the  chief  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  made  about  the  time  of 
Christ)  in  the  sense  of  a  rock  or  ledge  of  rocks  in  Num.  xx,  8-n  ;  Judges  vi  2O  ; 
I  Sam.  xiv,  4  ;  Jer.  xlix,  16,  etc.  ;  and  in  the  sense  of  sea  coast  (rock  bound)  in  Gen. 
xxii,  17,  etc.  ;  but  nowhere  that  we  have  been  able  to  find  does  it  occur  in  the  sense 
of  a  piece  of  rock  or  a  stone  in  these  Targums.  In  translating  Kepha  into  Greek  it 
was  necessary  to  employ  the  word  Petros  (Peter),  the  masculine  form,  from  the  fem 
inine  Hirpa,  as  the  feminine  form  is  unsuitable  for  the  name  of  a  man. 


OF   THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES..  719 

thee,  Thai  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church;  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  In  the 
vernacular  language  of  Christ  (the  Aramaic),  N3O,  Kepha,  was  used 
both  for  Peter  and  for  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  was  to  be 
built.  "  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Kepha,  and  upon  this 
Kepha  I  will  build  my  Church,"  etc.  It  is  clear  that  our  Saviour 
indulges  in  a  paronomasia?  and  affirms  he  will  build  his  Church  upon 
him,  the  rock ;  but  not  in  such  a  way  as  to  exclude  the  other  apos 
tles,  who,  if  they  had  not  at  that  time  such  a  strong  faith  as  Peter 
had,  yet  afterward  attained  it,  and  entered  as  foundation  stones  into 
the  Christian  edifice.  Hence  the  language  of  Paul :  "Ye  are  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  him 
self  being  the  chief  corner  stone  "  (Eph.  ii,  20).  Also  in  the  Apoca 
lypse  it  says :  "The  wall  of  the  city  had  twelve  foundations,  and  in 
them  the  name  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb  "  (xxi,  14).  Christ 
also  promised  to  give  him  the  "  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "with 
plenary  powers"  (Matt,  xvi,  19).  Accordingly,  we  find  that  he 
opened  the  kingdom,  that  is,  first  preached  the  gospel  to  Jews  and 
Gentiles  (Acts  ii,  14-36;  x). 

But  notwithstanding  his  strong  faith  and  ardent  zeal,  the  fear  of 
death  so  far  prevailed  over  him  that  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest, 
after  the  arrest  of  Christ,  he  thrice  denied  his  knowledge  of  his 
Master,  and  at  his  third  denial  he  began  to  curse  and  to  swear 
(Mark  xiv,  66-71).  At  Christ's  appearance  to  his  disciples  at  the 
sea  of  Galilee  (John  xxi),  he  charged  Peter  to  feed  his  lambs  and 
his  sheep,  and  at  the  same  time  he  predicted  his  death  by  cruci 
fixion.' 

After  the  ascension  of  the  Lord,  in  the  first  general  assembly  of 
believers  in  Jerusalem,  Peter  calls  attention  to  the  ne-  Peter  the  lead. 
cessity  of  appointing  an  eyewitness  of  the  life  of  Christ  er  after  Christ's 
to  take  the  apostleship  of  Judas.  On  the  day  of  Pente-  afl°enslon- 
cost  he  preaches  the  gospel  to  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem.  Subse 
quently  to  this  he  heals  a  lame  man,  and  preaches  to  the  assembled 
crowds ;  he  rebukes  the  hypocrisy  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira ;  he  is 

1  Paronomasias  are  not  unknown  to  the  Old  Testament.  In  Gen.  ix,  27  :  "God 
shall  enlarge  (^p"!,  yaphf)  Japhet "  (F>|7»  yepheth,  enlargement}.  So  in  Isa.  v.  7  : 
"And  he  waited  for  i"I|^"J-2  (tsedhaqah,  righteousness),  and  behold  there  was  tllP^S 
(fst'ofaft,  outcry,  -violence},  etc.  Of  course,  the  language  of  Christ  addressed  to  Peter 
is  figurative.  On  this  rock,  not  bishops  or  popes,  but  the  Church,  was  to  be  built. 
A  foundation  rock  is  dissimilar  from  the  building,  and  it  stands  alone.  Peter  had 
no  successors.  And  it  must  be  observed  that  this  language  was  addressed  to  Peter 
in  possession  of  strong  faith  in  Christ. 

"This  seems  to  be  the  import  of  *«hn  *xi,  18. 


720 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE    STUDY 


imprisoned  with  the  other  apostles,  but  is  released  by  an  angel.  At 
a  later  period  he  and  John  were  sent  by  the  apostles  to  Samaria, 
where  he  came  in  contact  with  Simon  the  Magician.  In  his  travels 
ne  comes  to  Lydda,  where  he  heals  Eneas  sick  of  'he  palsy.  At 
Joppa  he  raises  Dorcas  from  the  dead.  Here  he  has  a  vision,  in 
which  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  is  foreshadowed,  and  he  is  directed 
by  the  Spirit  to  go  to  Cornelius,  a  heathen  at  Caesarea,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  him,  which  opens  the  door  of  salvation  to  the  Gentiles. 
Herod  arrests  and  imprisons  him,  with  a  view  of  putting  him  to  death, 
but  an  angel  sets  him  at  liberty.  At  the  council  in  Jerusalem  he 
expresses  himself  decidedly  against  putting  the  yoke  of  the  Mosaic 
law  upon  the  neck  of  Gentile  believers  (chap.  xv).  This  is  his  last 
appearance  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  He  is  mentioned  by  Paul 
several  times  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  as  being  either  at  Je 
rusalem  or  Antioch,  but  the  incidents  given  respecting  him  do  not 
extend  beyond  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts.1  At  the  clo^e  of 
his  First  Epistle  he  sends  a  salutation  from  the  Church  at  Babylon, 
on  the  Euphrates,  from  which  it  appears  that  he  was  once  there. 

Outside  of  the  New  Testament,  the  oldest  notice  of  Peter  occurs 
Notices  of  Peter  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians, 
in  the  Fathers.  written  sometime  in  A.  D.  93-96.  After  remarking  that 
the  most  righteous  and  faithful  pillars  of  the  Church  had  been  per- 
secuted  and  suffered  unto  death,  he  says,  "  Let  us  place  before  our 
eyes  the  good  apostles.  Peter,  on  account  of  unjust  jealousy, endured, 
not  one,  nor  two,  but  many  sufferings,  and  thus,  having  borne  testi 
mony,  he  went  to  the  place  of  glory  that  was  due  him."  *  From  this 
it  is  clear  that  he  suffered  martyrdom ;  and  as  Clement  afterward,  in 
the  same  connection,  speaks  of  the  martyrdom  of  Paul,  and  names 
no  other  apostle,  it  is  not  improbable  that  Peter  suffered  at  Rome, 
where  Paul  was  martyred,  or  in  its  vicinity. 

The  next  reference  to  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  occurs  in  Dionys- 
Notices  of  Pe-  ius,  bishop  of  Corinth  (about  A.  D.  170),  who  remarks 
fS^hSSSE  in  his  EPistle  to  the  Romans  that  "  Petei  and  Paul 
and  others.  visited  Corinth  and  Italy,  taught  and  suffered  as  martyrs 
at  the  same  time."  He  also  speaks  of  the  Roman  and  Corinthian 
Churches  as  having  been  planted  by  Peter  and  Paul.3  Irenzeus 
(about  A.  D.  1 80)  speaks  of  Peter  and  Paul  as  preaching  the  gospel 
in  Rome,4  and  founding  a  Church  there.  Caius,  a  Roman  presby- 

1  In  Gal.  ii,  ii,  "  But  when  Peter  was  come  to  Antioch."  etc.,  refers  to  what  trans 
pired  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  in  that  city  (Acts  xv,  35).  The  supposed  in 
consistency  of  Peter  referred  to  by  Paul  (Gal.  ii,  I«-I4)  we  considered  in  discussing 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  *  Sec.  5,  in  Const  text 

•In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  ii,  cap.  xxv.  'Hi,  cap.  i,  I. 


OF    THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  72: 

trr  (about  A.  D.  200),  is  the  next  witness  respecting  Peter.  In  a 
book  written  against  Proclus,  the  leader  of  the  sect  of  the  Cataphry- 
ges,  he  says  :  "  I  can  show  you  the  monuments  of  the  apostles.  For 
if  you  wish  to  go  out  to  the  Vatican,  or  to  the  road  to  Ostia,  you  will 
find  the  monuments  [tombs]  of  those  who  founded  this  Church." ' 
Tertullian  of  Carthage  (about  A.  D.  200)  states  that  Peter  and  Paul 
left  the  Romans  the  gospel  sealed  with  their  own  blood,"  and  that 
her-?  Peter  was  made  like  the  Lord  in  suffering.3 

Origen,  who  flourished  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  re 
marks  :  "  Peter  appears  to  have  preached  the  gospel  in  Pontus,  Galatia 
and  Bithynia,  Cappadocia,  and  in  Asia,  to  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion. 
Finally,  being  in  Rome,  he  was  crucified  head  downward,  he  him 
self  having  preferred  to  suffer  in  this  way."  4 

Jerome  states,  that  after  Peter  "  had  been  bishop  of  the  Church 
in  Antioch,  and  had  preached  the  gospel  among  the  dis-  Probable  date 
persed  Jews,  who  had  believed,  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cap-  of  Peter's  am- 
padocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  he  went  in  the  second  year  v 
of  the  Emperor  Claudius  (A.  D.  43)  to  Rome,  to  vanquish  Simon 
Magus,  and  he  held  there  the  Sacerdotal  Chair  for  twenty-five  years, 
until  the  last  year  of  Nero,  that  is,  the  fourteenth  (A.  D.  68),  by 
whom  he  was  crucified  and  crowned  with  martyrdom,  his  head 
being  downward  and  his  feet  upward,  declaring  that  he  was  unworthy 
to  be  crucified  in  the  same  way  as  his  Lord.  .  .  .  He  was  buried  at 
Rome  in  the  Vatican,  near  the  Triumphal  Way."6  But  it  is  impos 
sible  to  reconcile  this  episcopacy  of  twenty-five  years  at  Rome  with 
probabilities  and  facts. 

About  A.  D.  51,  52  Peter  is  still  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  or  their 
vicinity  (Acts  xv  :  Gal.  ii,  i,  n),  so  that  it  is  impossible  peter  robabl 
for  him  to  have  gone  to  Rome  in  the  second  year  of  four  years  in 
Claudius  (A.  D.  43).  After  Peter  left  Antioch  Jerome  Rome' 
states  that  he  preached  the  gospel  in  Pontus  and  the  adjacent  re 
gions  before  going  to  Rome.  And  it  appears  that  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  was  written  at  Babylon,  or  in  its  vicinity  (chap,  v,  13)  ;  so  that 
he  must  have  visited  that  region  of  country  before  going  to  Rome. 
In  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  written  from  Rome  after  his  arrival  there, 
about  A.  D.  62,  there  is  no  mention  of  Peter,  nor  any  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Church  in  that  city,  written  about  A.  D.  58. 

'In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles ,  ii,  cap.  xxv.         'Adversus  Marcionem,  iv,  cap.  r. 

'  Liber  de  Prescript.,  cap.  xxxvi. 

4  In  vol.  iii,  Commentary  on  Genesis  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  cap.  i. 

*  Liber  de  Viris  Illustribus.  Petrus.  In  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius  it  is  stated 
that  Peter  was  bishop  of  the  Church  at  Rome  for  twenty-five  years,  but  this  is  in  the 
Latin  version,  to  which  the  translators  made  additions. 

VOL.  I.— 46 


722  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

It  seems  probable  that  Peter  did  not  reach  Rome  until  after  A  D. 
64,  and  that  he  was  crucified  there  A.  D.  67  or  68.  There  is  no 
good  reason  for  doubting  the  fact  of  his  martyrdom  at  Rome,  as  the 
tradition  goes  back,  as  we  have  already  seen,  to  the  second  century, 
when  the  Roman  Church  had  not  yet  laid  claim  to  her  lofty  prerog 
atives  ;  nor  would  the  tradition  of  his  martyrdom  in  that  city  have 
boen  universal  in  the  earlier  centuries  if  it  had  not  rested  upon  an 
historical  basis.  The  truth  of  the  tradition  is  conceded  by  Gieselcr,1 
is  considered  most  probable  by  Neander,8  deemed  an  historical  fact 
by  Bleek,8  improbable  by  De  Wette,4  and,  though  rejected  by  Baur,b 
is  accepted  by  the  skeptical  Hilgenfeld." 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 

THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    GENERAL    OF    PETER. 
THE   PERSONS   ADDRESSED. 

Epistle  is  addressed  to  the  "  strangers  scattered  throughout 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  elect  accord 
ing  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,"  etc.  By  "the  strangers  of  the 
dispersion  "  (TrapemdT/juotc  diaanopds)  he  does  not  mean  Christian 
believers  of  the  Jewish  race  especially,  as  we  might  suppose,  but 
Christians  in  general,  dispersed  strangers,  having  no  country  they  can 
call  their  own.  The  language  was  originally  applied  to  the  dispersed 
Jewish  people.  That  the  persons  addressed  were  Christians  from 
among  the  Gentiles  chiefly  appears  from  chaps,  i,  14,  18;  ii,  10, 

»v,  3,  4- 

THE   GENUINENESS   OF  THIS  EPISTLE. 

The  writer  styles  himself  "  Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and 
to  him  the  Epistle  was  universally  attributed  by  the  ancient  Church. 
It  was  evidently  used  by  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  in 
the  following  words :  "  In  whom  ye  believe,  not  having  seen,  yet  believ 
ing,  ye  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory."  '  It  was  used 
by  Hernias 8  (about  A.D.  140)  and  by  Papias  of  Hierapolis  in  the  first 

1  Church  History,  vol.  i,  p.  81.  2  Planting  and  Training,  pp.  377-381. 

3Einleitung,  p.  654.  4Einleitung,  p.  377. 

5  Die  Drei  Ersten  Jahrhunderte.     Dritte  Ausgabe,  142. 

6  Einleitung,  p.  624.     Clement  of  Alexandria  remarks  :   "  They  say,  indeed,  that 
when  the  blessed  Peter  saw  his  wife  led  away  to  be  put  to  death  he  was  delighted 
on  account  of  her  calling  and  return  home,  and,  addressing  her  by  name,  he  ear-  t 
nestly  exhorted  her,  Remember  the  Lord  (Strom,  vii,  cap.  xi).     From  this  it  appears 
that  Peter  at  that  time  was  in  some  place  well  known  to  Clement. 

7  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  sec.  I.  8  Vis.,  iii,  n. 


OF   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  723 

half  of  the  second  century.1  It  was  contained  in  the  Peshito-Syriac 
version,  made  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  It  is  quoted 
as  Peter's  by  Irenaeus,3  by  Clement "  of  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian4  of 
Carthage.  Origen  remarks  that  "  Peter  has  left  one  acknowledged 
Epistle."  *  Eusebius,  in  his  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  remarks  that  the  "First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  to  be  received." 
It  was  received  as  Peter's  by  Cyprian 7  of  Carthage,  Hilary "  of 
Poitiers  in  Gaul,  by  Ambrose9  of  Milan,  by  Athanasius,10  TMS  Epistle 
by  Gregory  Nazianzen,11  Didymus  "  of  Alexandria,  Chrys-  ^wSeVS 
ostom,18  Augustine,14  Jerome,15  and  Theodoret.18  It  was  the  ancient 
admitted  into  all  the  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testa-  Church- 
ment.17  It  is  not,  however,  found  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori ;  but  no 
stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  this,  as  the  Canon  is  imperfect. 

Nowhere  do  we  find  a  single  instance  in  which  the  Epistle  was 
rejected;  for  the  statement  of  Leontius  of  Byzantium,  Alleged  rejec- 
that  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  rejected  the  Epistle  of  ^So^re"  of7 
James,  and  successively  the  other  Catholic  Epistles,18  Mopsuestia. 
does  not  make  it  certain  that  he  rejected  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, 
and  in  itself  it  is  very  improbable.  It  is  true  that  the  language  most 
naturally  means  that  he  rejected  all  seven.  But  is  it  likely  that  a 
man  of  his  ability  and  learning,  who  certainly  received  John's  Gos 
pel,  would  have  rejected  his  Epistle,  so  intimately  connected  with 
that  Gospel,  and  concerning  which,  so  far  as  we  know,  a  doubt  had 
never  been  raised  ?  If  we  feel  authorized  in  excepting  the  First 
Epistle  of  John  from  the  general  statement,  we  may  except  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter  also.  Theodore,  doubtless,  rejected  the  Second 

1  According  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.,  iii,  cap.  xxxix),  who  had  his  work  before  him. 

*  Lib.  iv,  cap.  ix,  xvi ;  lib.  v,  cap.  vii.         '  Strom.,  iii,  cap.  xviii ;  Paedag.,  iii,  cap.  xiL 
4  Adversus  Gnosticos  Scorpiace,  cap.  xii.  *  In  Eusebius,  vi,  25. 

*  Ibid.,  iii,  cap.  xxv. 

T  Epistola  Ad  Fortunatum,  cap.  ix.  In  his  book  (De  Zelo  et  Livore)  he  quotes 
i  Peter  v,  8,  with  the  remark,  "  According  to  what  the  Apostle  Peter  in  his  Epistle 
advises,"  etc.  8  Psalm  li. 

9  He  quotes  i  Peter  i,  18,  19  with  the  remark,  "  Peter  in  his  Epistle  says,"  etc. 
Comment,  in  Luc.,  lib.  vii,  117.  10  Oratio  ii,  Contra  Arianos.  "Carmina. 

" Enarratio  in  i  Peter.  "  Synopsis  Sac.  Scrip.  "De  Doc.  Christ.,  ii,  8. 

16  De  Viris  Illustribus.     Petrus.  "  Demons,  per  Syllogismos. 

"  We  cannot  speak  with  certainty  of  the  Gothic  version,  as  it  has  not  come  down 
to  us  entire. 

18  Speaking  of  the  rejection  by  Theodore  of  the  book  of  Job,  referred  to  by  James, 
Leontius  remarks :  At'  yv  airtav  avTyv  re  olput,  TOV  peydhov  'Ia/c6/?ow  rrjv  kKtoroMjv 
cat  rdf  ifa  rtiv  uXTiuv  aTro/c^purrci  /catfoAt/tdf  (Adversus  Incorrup.  et  Nestor,  lib. 
iii,  14.  De  Wette  had  before  him  the  Latin  translation  of  these  words,  and  he  ob 
serves  on  them  :  "  It  does  not  clearly  lie  in  these  words  that  Theodore  of  Mopsue*- 
tia  rejected  the  Epistle."  Einleitung,  p.  386. 


724  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Epistle  of  Peter,  that  of  Jude,  and  the  Second  and  Third  ol 
John. 

Further,  Theodoret  was  the  enthusiastic  disciple  of  Theodore> 
and  most  probably  reflected  his  master's  opinions  on  the  Canon,  and 
he  quotes '  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  with  the  remark  :  "  The  divine 
Peter  says  in  his  Catholic  [Epistle]  that  Christ  suffered  in  the  flesh ' 
(chap  iv,  i).  He  likewise  quotes  as  his  the  First  Epistle  of  John, 
but  nowhere  does  he  quote  the  Epistle  of  James  by  name,8  nor  do  we 
find  in  him  a  vestige  of  Second  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  Second 
and  Third  of  John. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  charge  brought  against  Theodore, 
of  rejecting  the  Catholic  Epistles,  comes  from  his  bitter  enemy, 
who  charges  him,  as  another  Marcion,  with  not  being  satisfied  in 
attacking  the  Old  Testament  only,  but  with  making  attempts  upon 
the  New.  It  is  not  likely  that  he  discriminated  very  nicely  in  his 
remarks  respecting  Theodore.  The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  whether 
genuine  or  not,  bears  testimony  to  the  existence  and  authority  of  the 
First  (2  Pet.  iii,  i). 

If  we  examine  the  contents  of  this  Epistle,  we  find  that  it  bears  the 
Modem  objec-  apostolic  stamp,  contains  nothing  unworthy  of  an  apostle, 
uinSie^^con-  notning  belonging  to  a  later  age,  and  it  impresses  us  at 
Hidered.  once  with  its  genuineness.  With  the  facts  before  us  it 

is  not  easy  to  see  how  a  doubt  respecting  it  could  ever  arise.  But, 
in  spite  of  the  strong  external  and  internal  evidence  in  its  favor, 
its  genuinenesss  has  been  called  in  question  by  some  modern  critics. 
Semler  first  denied  its  immediate  composition  by  the  apostle.  He 
was  followed  by  Cludius,  who  in  the  first  part  of  the  present  cen 
tury  rejected  its  Petrine  authorship,  and  attributed  it  to  some  one  be 
longing  to  the  school  of  Paul.  De  Wette,  in  the  various  editions  of 
his  Introduction,  expressed  himself  with  more  or  less  doubt  respect 
ing  it.  Its  genuineness  is  denied  by  Baur,  Schwegler,  and  Hilgen- 
feld. 

To  begin  with  De  Wette:  this  skeptical  critic  grants  that  the 
Epistle  belongs  to  the  apostolic  age,  on  the  ground  of  the  expecta 
tion  expressed  in  it  of  the  speedy  end  of  all  things  (chap,  iv,  7),  and 
that  it  was  written  during  Nero's  persecution  of  the  Christians.  This 
is,  indeed,  highly  probable,  and  is  fully  consistent  with  its  genuine 
ness. 

1  Demons,  per  Syllogismos. 

1  There  is  one  passage  that  looks  as  if  it  came  from  James  iv,  8  :  "I  have  said, 
Draw  nigh  to  me,  and  I  will  draw  nigh  to  you,"  though  there  are  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  we  are  exhorted  to  draw  nigh  unto  God.  The  first  Epistle  <A 
John  and  First  of  Peter  are  quoted  by  Theodoret  in  several  places. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTbRES.  725 

The  following  are  his  objections  :  "  It  does  not  exhibit  a  definite 
peculiarity,  like  the  works  of  John  and  Paul.  Not  only  DQ  wette's  ob- 
are  there  found  reminiscences  of  passages  of  the  Pauline  I60110*3- 
Epistles,  the  reading  of  which  by  the  author  is  doubtless  to  be  pre 
supposed,  but  also  his  conceptions  and  language  are  essentially 
Pauline.  To  this  is  to  be  added  that  the  writer  does  not  master 
with  freedom  and  ease,  as  his  own  property,  the  thoughts  with  which 
he  is  occupied,  but  handles  them  with  some  uncertainty.  The 
improbability  that  the  Apostle  Peter  would  put  himself  into  such  de 
pendence  upon  Paul,  and  especially  that  he  could  have  been  ac 
quainted  with  Paul's  later  Epistles,  and  even  the  spurious  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians,  establishes  a  strong  suspicion  respecting  the  genu 
ineness  of  the  Epistle,  to  which,  however,  all  antiquity  bears  testi 
mony."  l 

We  scarcely  know  how  to  characterize  the  foregoing  statements  of 
this  able  but  skeptical  critic.  To  say  the  least,  they  are  mere  as 
sumptions.  This  Epistle  has  an  individual  stamp  of  its  own,  which 
scarcely  any  one  can  fail  to  see,  and  which  no  one  would  confound 
with  the  Pauline  type.  Its  vigorous,  earnest  style  reflects  the  char 
acter  of  Peter  as  he  appears  in  the  New  Testament  history.  There 
is  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  Peter  may  have  seen 
some  of  Paul's  Epistles,  but  that  he  leans  upon  them  is  manifestly  false. 
There  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  apostles  in  quot 
ing  each  other's  expressions,  as  it  is  well  known  was  done  by  the  He 
brew  prophets.2  But  we  must  say  that  we  are  not  convinced  that  Peter 
has  used  the  writings  of  Paul.  Respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe 
sians,  De  Wette  has  no  sufficient  grounds  for  pronouncing  it  spuri 
ous.  But  if  he  insists  upon  this,  why  can  he  not  adopt  the  more  sen 
sible  hypothesis  in  that  case,  that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  made  use  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  which  he  concedes 
to  have  been  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ? 

It  is,  indeed,  true,  that  there  are  a  few  thoughts  and  words  in  this 
Epistle  of  Peter  similar  to  some  found  in  the  writings  of  Paul  and 
James,  and  this  was  to  be  expected ;  for  the  germs  of  the  apostolic 
doctrine  are  found  in  the  discourses  of  Christ,  which  were  the  com 
mon  property  of  them  all.  Now,  it  is  certainly  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  different  apostles,  in  developing  the  thoughts  of  Christ, 
would  touch  each  other  at  some  points.  Peter  and  James  had  been  a 
long  time  together  discussing  the  same  great  principles.  Is  it  strange, 
then,  that  there  should  be  something  in  common  with  them  when 

xEinleitung,  pp.  381-386. 

*As  an  instance  of  this  quoting,  compare  Isa.  ii,  2-4  with  Micah  iv,  1-3  j  these 
prophets  were  contemporary. 


726  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

they  write  ?  Paul,  also,  was  in  the  company  of  the  apostles  and  theii 
companions,  and  there  must  have  been  a  community  of  sentiment 
and  thought,  to  a  considerable  extent  at  least. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  the  passages  in  this  Epistle  which  De 
The  passages  ^ette  anc*  some  others  think  are  based  on  the  Ephe- 
in  i  Peter  sup-  sians,  because  they  are  the  only  ones  l  that  would  create 
vS  to  be  any  difficulty.  For  the  other  Epistles  of  Paul  (to  the 
borrowed  from  Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians)  which  might  be 
supposed  to  have  furnished  the  basis,  at  least  a  hint,  foi 
some  of  the  thoughts  and  expressions  in  this  Epistle,  were  written,  in 
all  probability,  six  or  seven  years  before  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, 
while  that  to  the  Ephesians  was  written,  perhaps,  not  more  than  one 
or  two  years  earlier.  Still,  even  in  this  case,  there  would  be  a  possi 
bility  that  the  Epistle  might  have  been  seen  by  Peter  before  he 
wrote. 

In  the  very  beginning  Peter  declares  to  the  Christians  addressed 
that  they  "  are  elected  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God," 
while  Paul,  in  Ephesians,  declares  that  God  "  has  chosen  us  in  him 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  "  (chap,  i,  4).  But  the  same  idea 
occurs  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (chap,  viii,  28,  29).  Was  Peter, 
indeed,  dependent  upon  Paul  for  the  doctrine  of  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  and  the  election  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  ?  This  we  cannot 
believe.  Peter,  in  the  Acts  (ii,  23),  represents  Christ  as  having 
"  been  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge a  01 
God."  Peter  was  the  apostle  who  first  preached  the  gospel  to  the 
Gentiles ;  and,  after  his  speech  in  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv), 
James  says:  "Simon  hath  declared  how  God  at  the  first  did  visit 
the  Gentiles  to  take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name."  What  is 
this  but  election  ?  And  what  was  more  natural  than  that  Peter,  in 
addressing  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers,  should  speak  of  their  elec 
tion  independently  of  what  Paul  had  written  ? 

Peter  has,  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ "  (chap,  i,  3).  Paul  has,  "  Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  (2  Cor.  i,  3).  Similar  is  Ephesians  i,  3. 
But  the  phrase,  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  "  (evAcyiyrtk;  «vp/of  6 
#eof),  very  similar  to  the  one  in  Peter  and  Paul,  is  based  on  an  Old 
Testament  formula,  rnrv  }na  (Gen.  ix,  26 ;  xxiv,  27 ;  Ezra  vii,  27, 
etc.) ;  so  that  Peter  did  not  borrow  this  phrace  from  Eph  i,  3  Even 

1  If  there  had  been  passages  in  the  Epistle  based  on  Cclossians  and  Phihppians, 
the  same  difficulty  would  have  presented  itself,  as  these  F.pistles  were  written  about 
the  same  time  as  Ephesians. 

'The  same  word,  irpoyvuoif,  occurs  both  in  this  passage  in  the  /cts  and  ?n  I  Pet 
i.  2,  but  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  727 

it  he  borrowed  it  from  Paul,  he  could  have  taken  it  from  2  Cor.  i,  3 
In  i  Peter  ii,  18  we  have  :  "  Servants,  be  in  subjection  to  your  mas 
ters  with  all  fear;  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the 
froward."  In  Ephesians :  "  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are 
your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling,  in  sin- 
glenesss  of  your  hsart,  as  unto  Christ"  (chap,  vi,  5).  In  the  first 
passage  the  Greek  is,  ol  oltiirai,  vnoTaaa6[j,Kvoi  ev  -rravri  <£cj3u>  rolg  de- 
tjTrorais,  K.  T.  X.  In  the  second,  ol  SovXoi,  vnaKuvere  role;  Kara  adpica 
WQioig  pera  0dj3oi>,  K.  r.  A.  It  is  thus  seen  that  there  is  only  one  word 
in  the  Greek  common  to  both  passages.  If  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
under  consideration  had  ever  read  this  passage  from  Paul,  is  it  likely 
that,  in  writing  on  the  same  subject,  he  would  have  hit  upon  a  single 
word  only  of  it,  and  that,  too,  in  a  different  case  ?  Besides,  the  ideas 
are  only  in  part  the  same. 

In  chap,  iii,  i,  Peter  says  :  "Likewise,  ye  wives,  be  in  subjection 
to  your  own  husbands  ;  that  if  any  obey  not  the  word,  other  passages 
they  also  may  without  the  word  be  won  by  the  conversa-  compared, 
tion  (deportment)  of  the  wives."  In  Ephesians  v,  22,  23  we  find  : 
"  Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  own  husbands,  as  unto  the 
Lord.  For  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is 
the  head  of  the  Church,"  etc.  Peter  continues  his  remarks  about 
wives  in  chap,  iii,  2-6,  in  which  there  is  nothing  common  to  him  with 
Ephesians.  There  is  nothing  common  to  the  latter  Epistle  and  that 
of  Peter,  except  "Wives  be  in  subjection  to  your  own  husbands." 
in  the  former  the  Greek  is  :  al  yvvalne^  rote  idiou;  dvdpdaiv  (VTTO- 
raaa6(j.evai  to  be  supplied.)  In  the  latter  it  is:  yvvalneg  vnoraa. 
"6{j,evai  ro?£-  dv6pdaiv.  Peter  gives  as  the  reason  for  the  subjection 
of  wives  to  husbands,  and  their  correct  deportment,  that  their  hus 
bands  may  be  won  over  to  the  gospel  by  the  godly  example  of  the 
wives.  Paul  enjoins  upon  the  wives  subjection  to  their  husbands,  as 
to  the  Lord,  even  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church ;  and  as  the 
Church  is  subject  to  Christ,  so  must  wives  be  to  their  husbands. 
Now,  in  respect  to  the  Greek  common  to  both  passages — on  the  sup 
position  that  Peter  wished  to  enjoin  subjection  of  wives  to  husbands — 
what  other  Greek  could  he  have  used  ?  Twrj  is  the  only  word  in 
prose  Greek  for  wife,  and  dvrig  l  is  the  only  word  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  used  for  husband.  To  express  subjection,  the  word  used  in  the 
New  Testament  is  vrrordaffG),  occurring  thirty-eight  times.  But  the 
general  meaning  of  yvv?},  rendered  wife,  is  woman;  and  dvT/p,  ren 
dered  husband,  strictly  means  man,  so  that  another  word  was  neces 
sary  to  make  the  meaning  definite,  t<5ioc,  own.  Let  any  one  attempt 
to  put  into  different  English  the  phrase  :  "  Wives,  be  subject  to  your 
for  husband  rarely  occurs  in  prose  Greek,  the  common  word  being  avrip 


738  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

husbands."  We  have  no  synonyme  for  wife,  nor  for  husband,  and 
the  effort  would  be  difficult.  "  Ye  younger,  submit  yourselves  to  the 
elder,  and  all  of  you  put  on  humility  toward  each  other,1  for  God 
resisteth  the  proud,"  etc.  (chap,  v,  5).  The  nearest  approximation 
to  this  in  Ephesians  is,  "  Being  subject  to  each  other  in  the  fear  cf 
Christ  "  (chap,  v,  2).'  There  is  no  probable  reference  in  the  former 
passage  to  the  latter. 

We  have  thus  considered  the  passages  adduced  to  show  that  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  was  acquainted  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe 
sians,  and  have  found  no  probable  proof  of  such  acquaintance  ; 
although,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  there  is  no  improbability  in 
the  supposition  that  Peter  may  have  seen  some  of  the  earlier  Epis 
tles  of  Paul,  perhaps,  also,  that  of  James.  But  we  must  reject  as  des 
titute  of  proof,  and,  under  the  circumstances,  as  rather  improbable, 
the  claim  that  the  author  had  ever  seen  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  thus  the  only  ground  at  all  plausible  for  the  rejection  of  this 
Epistle  of  Peter  is  taken  away. 

The  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  is  vitally  connected  with  the  time 
The  time  of  the  °^  *ts  c0111?05^011-  Schwegler,  Baur,  and  Hilgenfeld 
composition  of  refer  its  composition  to  the  period  of  the  persecution  of 
First  Peter.  the  cnristjans  under  Trajan,  about  A.  D.  113.  Hilgen- 
leld  contends  that  the  references  in  the  Epistle  to  the  persecution 
of  the  Christians  lead  to  that  date.  But  the  persecution  of  the  Chris 
tians  by  Nero,  about  A.  D.  64,  to  which  Eichhorn,  Hug,  De  Wette, 
Neander,  and  Ewald  refer  the  allusions  to  sufferings,  is  to  be  ac 
cepted  as  the  only  one  that  fully  accords  with  all  the  facts  of  the 
case. 

In  chap,  i,  6  the  persons  addressed  are  represented  as  suffering 
various  trials;  and  in  chap,  iv,  12  they  are  exhorted:  "Beloved,  be 
not  surprised  at  the  calamity  (rrvpwffic,  burning)  among  you  which 
is  happening  for  your  trial,  as  if  a  strange  thing  were  befalling  you." 
To  which  is  added  :  "  But  rejoice,  inasmuch  as  ye  are  partakers  of 
Christ's  sufferings  ;  that  when  his  glory  shall  be  revealed,  ye  may  be 
glad  also  with  exceeding  joy.  If  ye  be  reproached  for  the  name  of 
Christ,  happy  are  ye.  ...  But  let  none  of  you  suffer  as  a  murderer, 
or  as  a  thief,  or  as  an  evil  doer,  or  as  a  busybody  in  other  men's 
matters.  Yet  if  any  man  suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be 


'The  Greek  of  this  clause  is,  Ildvref  de  aAAr/Aotf  TTJV  Taireivoi^poavvijv 

£,  the  reading  adopted  by  both  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  and  which  is  the 
reading  of  the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  and  Alexandrian  Codices,  and  of  the  Peshi'to-Syr- 
lac,  Memphitic,  and  Armenian  versions.  De  Wette  has  viroraaaofiEvoi  in  his  text. 
The  omission  of  this  takes  away  his  chief  ground  of  reference  in  this  passage  to 
Ephesians  v,  21. 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  729 

ashamed  ;  but  let  him  glorify  God  on  this  behalf"  (verses  13-16).  In 
chap,  ii,  12  the  writer  represents  the  Gentiles  as  speaking  "against 
them  as  evil  doers."  Again  he  says,  in  respect  to  their  former 
wicked  lives  :  "  They  (the  Gentiles)  think  it  strange  that  ye  run  not 
with  them  to  the  same  excess  of  riot,  speaking  evil  of  you  "  (chap. 
iv,  4). 

From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  cause  of  their  sufferings  was 
the  false  charges  brought  against  them  by  their  heathen  neigh 
bours  —  charges  that  originated  in  deep  hatred  of  the  Christians  for 
their  rejection  of  paganism,  with  all  the  splendid  festivals  connected 
with  pagan  worship.  Under  these  circumstances  the  populace  might 
rise  up  at  almost  any  time  against  the  Christians,  and  visit  upon  them 
terrible  suffering,  or  bring  them  before  the  magistrates,  and  demand 
the  infliction  of  punishment  upon  them  as  violators  of  the  laws.  All 
this  could  take  place  without  the  issuing  of  an  edict  by  a  Roman 
emperor,  and  without  the  prosecution  of  the  Christians  as  such  on 
the  part  of  the  Roman  governors.  And  something  similar  occurred 
at  Rome  in  the  time  of  Nero.  This  wicked  ruler,  to  destroy  the 
rumour  that  he  himself  had  set  fire  to  Rome,  attributed  it,  as  Taci 
tus  tells  us,  to  a  class  of  persons,  "  whom,  hated  for  their  crimes, 
the  populace  called  Christians."  Tacitus  at  the  same  time  informs 
us  that  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  them  was  not  so  much  on  the 
charge  of  burning  Rome  as  on  account  of  their  hatred  of  the  human 
race?  that  is,  their  contempt  of  paganism,  which,  as  Christians,  they 
felt  and  showed.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  they  suffered  as  Christians  ; 
yet  Hilgenfeld  has  the  coolness  to  tell  us  that  in  this  Epistle  "  the  per 
secution  under  Nero  cannot  be  intended,  because  in  it  the  Roman 
Christians  only  were  persecuted,  and  indeed  as  incendiaries  ;  accord 
ingly,  on  account  of  a  definite  crime  of  which  they  were  accused. 
In  our  Epistle,  on  the  contrary,  the  Christians  as  such  (w?  Xp*<ma- 
voi)  are  oppressed  and  ill-treated  on  account  of  their  conduct  in 
general,  which  was  sought  to  be  rendered  suspicious  as  illegal  and 
immoral"  (we  Kaiconoioi)* 

But  how  does  Hilgenfeld  know  that  the  persecution  under  Nero 
was  limited  to  the  Roman  Christians?  Is  it  not  in  itself  ^^  date  .  en 


very  probable  that  the  example  set  by  Nero  would  be  by 
f  ..'lowed  by  the  pagans  in  various  parts  of  the  empire?  Unpro1 
Suppose  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  should  institute  a  persecution  of  the 
Christians  at  Constantinople,  how  soon  the  example  would  be  fol 
lowed  in  the  empire  where  the  Mohammedans  are  in  the  ascen 
dency       Suetonius,  in  describing  the  times  of  Nero,  says  :  "  The 

*Haud  perinde  in  crimine  incendii  quam  odio  humani  generis,  convicti  sunk  —  An 
nal.,  lib.  xv,  cap.  xliv.  "Einleitung,  p  638,  639. 


730  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  STUDY 

Christians,  a  race  of  men  of  a  new  and  wicked  superstition,  were 
punished."  l  It  is  evident  from  his  language  that  they  were  punished 
as  Christians,  nor  does  he  limit  this  persecution  to  Rome. 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  Epistle  of  Peter  that  legal  investiga- 
Languajfeused  t*ons  anc*  Persecuti°ns  were  instituted  against  the  Chris- 
suits  the  time  tians  as  such ;  and  in  this  respect  the  state  of  things  to 
which  reference  is  made  in  the  Epistle  is  more  suitab'e 
to  the  latter  times  of  Nero  (about  A.  D.  64  and  after)  than  to  the 
latter  times  of  Trajan  (A.  D.  112  and  after),  when  Pliny,  as  governor 
of  Pontus  and  Bithynia,  punished  them  on  account  of  their  Chris 
tian  profession,  even  when  he  had  ascertained  that  they  were  guilty 
of  no  crimes."  The  Epistle  of  Peter  is  addressed  to  the  Christians 
of  five  provinces,  of  which  Pliny,  about  A.  D.  111-113,  governed' 
but  two,  Bithynia  and  Pontus.  The  other  three  were  then  under 
governors  respecting  whose  treatment  of  the  Christians  we  know 
nothing.  Yet  this  Epistle  represents  the  Christians  of  the  five  prov 
inces  suffering  the  same  afflictions  with  the  rest  of  the  world  (chap. 
v,  9),  and  makes  no  discrimination  respecting  provinces.  This  does 
not  suit  well  the  time  of  Pliny's  governorship.  Merivale  remarks, 
respecting  the  reply  of  Trajan  to  Pliny  :  "  Trajan  carefully  limits  his 
decision  to  the  particular  case  and  locality."5 

While  \ve  thus  think  it  highly  probable  that  the  Epistle  was  written 
about  A.  D.  64  or  65,  during  the  persecution  under  Nero,  the  refer 
ences  in  it  might  suit  some  other  persecution,  not  instituted  by  civil 
authority,  but  rather  an  outburst  of  pagan  fanaticism  against  the 
Christians,  such  as  is  sometimes  known  in  modern  times  in  Moham 
medan  lands.  The  references  to  persecutions  occupy  but  a  small 
portion  of  the  Epistle.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  there  were  many 
cases  in  which  the  Christians  addressed  were  suffering  the  death 
penalty. 

Hilgenfeld  supposes  the  Epistle  was  written  at  Rome,4  about 
miKenfeid's  A.  D.  113,  by  a  Christian  of  that  city,  during  the  perse- 
date  absurd.  cution  Of  the  Christians  of  Bithynia  and  Pontus  (de 
scribed  by  Pliny  the  Younger,  in  his  Epistle  to  Trajan  5),  to  strengthen 
them  in  their  sufferings.  That  is,  the  Epistle  was  forged  in  the 
name  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  about  forty-five  years  after  his  death,  and 
was  everywhere  received  throughout  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor. 
Its  universal  reception  in  these  provinces  is  certain.  For  we  find 

1  Nero,  cap.  xvi.  *  See  Epistle  xcvii  of  Pliny  to  Trajan. 

'  History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire,  vol.  vii,  p.  292. 

4  In  this  case  it  would  be  astonishing  that  the  forger  did  not  represent  it  as  written 
from  Rome,  where  it  was  well-known  that  Peter  spent  the  last  days  of  his  life,  in 
stead  of  from  the  obscure  Babylon.  5  Epistola  xcvii. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  731 

tnat  it  was  used  by  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  a  disciple  of  the 
Apostle  John  (in  his  Epistle,  written  about  A.  D.  115);  by  Papias, 
bishop  of  liierapolis  in  Phrygia;  was  attributed  to  Peter  by  Irenaeus, 
bishop  of  Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202),  who  spent  the  earlier  part  of  his 
life  in  Asia  Minor;  and  it  was  admitted  into  the  Peshito-Syriac  ver 
sion  of  the  New  Testament  (made  about  A.  D.  150),  used  in  an  ad 
jacent  region.  The  fact  of  its  admission  into  this  version  is  of  great 
value,  as  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  that  of  Jude,  the  Second  and 
Third  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse,  were  never  received  into  it.  We 
also  know  that  it  was  received  without  doubt  all  through  the  ancient 
Christian  world. 

Now,  it  is  clear  that  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor,  as  early  at  least 
as  A.  D.  115,  accepted  this  Epistle  as  that  of  Peter,  and  if  it  was 
forged  about  that  time  and  sent  to  them  they  must  have  believed 
that  Peter  was  still  living,  though  Clement  of  Rome  had  already 
stated  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written  in  the  last  part  of  the 
first  century,  that  he  had  died  as  a  martyr.  This  is,  indeed,  incredi 
ble.  Or  did  the  suffering  Christians  of  the  time  of  Pliny's  governor 
ship  believe  that  Peter  foresaw  their  sufferings,  and  to  meet  their  case 
wrote  the  Epistle  and  delivered  it  to  Silvanus  to  keep  for  forty  or 
fifty  years,  until  the  emergency  for  which  it  was  written  should  arise, 
when  he  was  to  deliver  it  to  them  ?  But  this  supposition  is  equally 
incredible  with  the  former.  It  accordingly  follows  that  it  was  written 
in  the  lifetime  of  Peter,  and  to  this  result  internal  evidence  con 
ducts  us.  In  chap,  iv,  7,  it  is  said,  "  But  the  end  of  all  things  is  at 
hand,"  which  indicates  that  the  Epistle  was  written  before  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem.  We  find  in  various  places  indications  that 
the  persons  addressed  had  been  living  at  one  time  in  paganism,  and, 
consequently,  that  they  belong  to  the  apostolic  age.  "Not  fashion 
ing  yourselves  according  to  the  former  lusts  in  your  ignorance,"  is 
the  language  of  chap,  i,  14.  Again  :  "Who  in  time  past  were  not  a 
people,  but  are  now  the  people  of  God"  (chap,  ii,  10).  "For  the 
time  past  of  our  life  may  suffice  us  to  have  wrought  the  will  of  the 
Gentiles,"  etc.  (chap,  iv,  3).  Another  indication  of  its  belonging  to 
the  apostolic  age  is  to  be  found  in  the  way  in  which  the  writer  speaks 
of  Church  officers.  "  The  elders  who  are  among  you,"  says  he, 
"  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ.  .  .  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,"  etc.  (chap. 
v,  i,  2)  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  distinction  between  the  bishop 
as  presiding  presbyter  and  the  other  presbyters  was  not  yet  made. 
This  pertains  to  apostolic  times. 

The  modest  way  in  which  Peter  styles  himself  simply  a  "  fellow- 
presbyter  "and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  i?  a  mark  of 


732  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE  STUDY 

genuineness.  Who  in  the  second  century  would  have  put  such  lan 
guage  as  this  into  the  mouth  of  this  great  apostle  ?  No  reason  can 
be  assigned  for  the  forgery  of  such  a  document,  especially  while 
Peter  was  still  living.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  see  how  it  could  have  been 
so  skilfully  executed  as  to  deceive  all  antiquity,  in  which  no  vestige 
of  suspicion  appears.  The  Epistle  was  sent  to  the  Churches  through 
Silvanus,  a  former  companion  of  Paul,  as  appears  from  its  clcse 
Paul  and  Silas  had  preached  the  gospel  in  Galatia  and  the  neigh 
bouring  regions  about  A.  D.  52,  before  which  time  it  is  probable  that 
few  Christians  were  found  there.  The  apostle  himself  states  the 
design  of  his  writing:  "  By  Silvanus,  a  faithful  brother  unto  you  as  I 
suppose,  I  have  written  briefly,  exhorting  and  testifying  that  this  is 
the  true  grace  of  God  wherein  ye  stand."  Neander  well  observes 
that  the  teachers  of  certain  errors  "  accused  Paul  of  falsifying  the 
original  Christian  doctrine,  and  had  appealed  to  the  authority  of  the 
elder  apostles  in  behalf  of  the  continued  obligation  of  the  Mosaic 
law.  Peter  availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  for  addressing  these 
Churches,  in  order  to  establish  them  in  the  conviction  that  the  doc 
trine  announced  to  them  by  Paul  and  his  disciples  and  companions, 
of  whom  Silvanus  was  one,  was  genuine  Christianity."1 

The  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  has  also  been  acknowledged  by 
Hug,  Schleiermacher,  Bleek,  and  others.  <Ewald  supposes  that  the 
Epistle  was  composed  by  Silvanus  under  the  instructions  of  Peter. 
Renan  thinks  it  was  written  a  short  time  before  Nero's  persecution, 
and  that  Peter  in  its  composition  availed  himself  of  the  assistance 
of  Silvanus  ;  and  De  Wette  remarks  :  "  The  hypothesis  of  its  com 
position  by  an  assistant  in  the  name  and  with  the  knowledge  of  Peter, 
we  leave  undecided."1 

Nothing  has  been  adduced  by  the  sceptical  school  to  cast  suspi 
cion  upon  this  noble  document,  and  it  has  come  down  to  us  attested 
in  the  strongest  manner  as  the  product  of  the  eminent  apostle  and 
eyewitness  of  the  life  of  Christ. 

PLACE   OF    COMPOSITION. 

The  place  of  its  composition  is  determined  from  the  salutations 
The  E  istie  near  tne  en(^  •  "  The  Church  that  is  at  Babylon,  elected 


written    from   together  with  you  (fj  kv  Baj3vA£w  avveK^eKTTj)^  saluteth 

you  ;  and  so  doth  Marcus  my  son."     The  word  iK-K^aia, 

Church,  is  wanting  in  the  Greek  MSS.     It  is  found,  however,  in  the 

Codex  Sinaiticus  ;  the  Peshito-Syriac,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  Armenian 

versions  also  contain  the  word  for  Church.     Neander  thinks  that 

instead  of  "  Church  "  we  are  to  understand  Peter's  wife,  but  it  seem? 

1  Planting  and  Training,  p.  374.  *  Einleitung,  p.  386. 


OF  THE  HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  733 

improbable  that  he  should  speak  of  her  as  a  fellow-elect  in  Babylon, 
and  it  seems  best  to  supply  eKK^rjaia  (Church). 

It  is  clear  from  this  salutation  that  the  Epistle  was  written  in 
Babylon,  or,  at  least,  in  its  vicinity.  But  the  question  as  to  what 
Babylon  is  intended  has  been  much  disputed.  Yet  we  can  hardly 
suppose  that  a  native  of  Palestine,  or  one  living  in  Western  Asia, 
could  mean  by  this  name  any  other  place  than  the  well-known  city 
of  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates.1  In  the  apostolic  age  a  considerable 
number  of  Jews  were  found  at  this  ancient  site.8  Some  of  the  an 
cients,  as  well  as  of  the  moderns,  regard  Babylon  as  a  symbolical 
name  for  Rome.  It  is  true  that  Rome  in  the  Apocalypse  is  called 
Babylon,  but  that  is  a  book  of  symbols;  and  in  an  Epistle  of  a  plain 
practical  nature,  written  before  the  Apocalypse,  such  a  name  fo/ 
Rome  is  extremely  improbable.  The  symbolical  exposition  was 
quite  natural  for  those  fathers  who  held  that  Peter  was  for  many 
years  bishop  of  the  Roman  metropolis,  from  which  it  was  to  be  ex 
pected  that  the  Epistle  would  be  written. 

The  Epistle  was  sent,  as  already  stated,  to  the  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor  by  Silvanus  (Silas).  There  is  nothing  improbable  sent  by  siiva- 
in  the  supposition  that  he  was  with  Peter  at  Babylon  nus- 
A.  D.  64  or  65,  as  he  no  longer  appears  as  the  companion  of  Paul  after 
A.  D.  57.  From  the  salutation,  it  seems  that  the  Evangelist  Mark 
was  also  with  Peter.  In  this  there  is  nothing  strange,  as  Mark  was 
an  acquaintance  of  his,  and  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
(about  A.  D.  63  or  64),  speaks  of  the  possibility  of  Mark's  coming  to 
them,  and  gives  directions  respecting  him  (chap,  iv,  10).  In  Paul's 
Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  (about  A.  D.  68)  Mark  is  spoken  of  as 
being  in  the  East  (chap,  iv,  n).  It  is,  therefore,  very  probable  that, 
about  A.  D.  63  or  64,  Mark  visited  Colossre  and  the  adjacent  re 
gions,  then  went  to  Babylon  to  see  Peter,  and  made  known  to  him 
the  affairs  of  the  Churches  in  Asia  Minor,  upon  the  receipt  of  which 
infcrmation  the  apostle  addressed  his  Epistle  to  these  Churches. 

CONTENTS. 

Peter  reminds  his  readers  of  their  election  to  the  privileges  of  the 
gospel,  of  the  glorious  inheritance  awaiting  them  through  the  resur 
rection  of  Christ,  speaks  of  their  trials  and  consolation,  refers  to  the 
fact  that  the  redemption  through  Christ  was  predicted  by  the  proph 
ets,  exhorts  them  to  holiness  of  life,  and  affirms  the  permanency  of  the 
divine  word  (chap.  i).  He  counsels  them  to  lay  aside  malevolent 

1  Babylon,  now  old  Cairo,  on  the  Xile,  a  little  south  of  the  modern  Cairo,  is  not  to 
be  thought  of.  'As  we  have  before  seen. 


734 


INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUm 


feelings,  deceit,  and  evil-speaking,  and  to  grow  up  a  spiritual  people 
He  also  reminds  them  of  their  high  privileges,  enjoins  upon  them 
obedience  to  rulers,  to  honour  all  men,  to  love  the  brotherhood,  to 
fear  God,  and  to  honour  the  king.  He  gives  directions  to  servants, 
and  encourages  his  readers  by  the  example  of  Christ  to  be  patient 
under  bad  treatment  (chap.  ii).  He  describes  the  duties  of  wives 
and  husbands,  exhorts  his  readers  to  unanimity,  to  affection  for  each 
other,  to  pity  and  courtesy,  to  avoid  returning  evil  for  evil,  to  do 
good,  and  to  follow  peace.  He  encourages  them  in  their  suffering 
for  righteousness'  sake,  exhorting  them  to  have  a  good  conscience, 
and  to  be  able  to  give  a  reason  for  their  hope,  and  refers  to  the 
suffering  of  Christ  for  our  sins,  his  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison, 
who  were  disobedient  in  the  time  of  Noah,  and  alludes  to  the  symbol 
of  baptism  (chap.  iii).  He  urges  them  to  purity  of  life,  sobriety, 
watchfulness,  and  prayer,  to  cultivate  love,  hospitality,  and  to  be 
faithful  ministers  of  the  divine  gift,  and  stewards  of  the  grace  of  God. 
He  encourages  them  to  endure  their  trials,  but  warns  them  not  to  suffer 
as  evil-doers,  and  counsels  them  to  have  confidence  in  God  (chap 
ter  iv).  He  gives  directions  to  the  presbyters  respecting  the  feeding 
of  the  flock  of  God,  encouraging  them  by  the  reward  they  shall 
receive ;  inculcates  the  obedience  of  the  younger  to  the  elder,  hu 
mility,  trust  in  God,  sobriety,  vigilance,'  resistance  to  the  devil,  re 
minding  them  that  God  will  perfect,  establish,  strengthen,  and  settle 
them ;  and  assures  them  that  it  is  the  true  grace  of  God  in  which 
they  stand.  He  concludes  by  sending  salutations,  and  telling  the 
brethren  to  greet  each  other  with  a  kiss  of  charity  (chap.  v). 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    GENERAL    OF    PETER. 
THE    PERSONS    ADDRESSED. 

'"PHE  Epistle  is  addressed  "  to  them  that  have  obtained  like  pre- 
cious  faith  with  us  through  the  righteousness  of  God,  and  our  Sav 
iour  Jesus  Christ,"  which  shows  that  it  is  an  encyclical  Epistle;  yet  in 
chap,  iii,  i  the  writer  states,  "  This  second  Epistle,  beloved,  I  now 
write^unto  you,  in  which  I  stir  up  your  pure  minds  by  way  of  re 
membrance." 

CONTENTS. 

The  writer  reminds  his  readers  of  the  high  privileges  which  they 
enjoy  in  the  gospel,  and  enumerates  the  virtues  which  they  are  to 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES,  735 

cultivate,  and  which  will  insure  them  admission  into  the  eveilasting 
kingdom  of  Christ.  He  states  that  he  is  soon  to  put  off  his  earthly 
tabernacle,  assures  them  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  affirms  that  he 
was  a  witness  of  the  transfiguration  of  Christ,  and  directs  them  tc 
give  heed  to  the  inspired  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  (chap.  i). 
He  describes  a  class  of  arrogant,  covetous,  licentious  heretics,  who 
are  to  appear  in  the  Church,  and  sets  forth  the  certainty  of  their  fate 
from  God's  punishment  of  sin  in  the  past  history  of  the  world.  He 
points  out  the  dreadful  state  of  those  who,  once  being  saved  from  sin 
through  Christ,  have  again  turned  to  their  iniquities  (chap.  ii).  He 
describes  a  class  of  scoffers  who  will  appear  in  the  last  days,  and 
ask,  Where  is  the  promise  of  Christ's  coming?  He  attributes  the 
conduct  of  such  scoffers  to  their  voluntary  ignorance.  He  declares 
that  God  is  long-suffering  toward  men,  but  that  Christ  will  certainly 
come  to  judgment.  He  affirms  that  all  things  shall  be  dissolved, 
but  that  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  are  expected,  wherein  dwell- 
eth  righteousness.  In  view  of  these  things  he  exhorts  his  readers  to 
diligence  and  steadfastness,  and  refers  to  the  difficulties  in  Paul's 
Epistles  touching  these  matters  (chap.  iii). 

THE    GENUINENESS  OF   THIS  EPISTLE. 

The  writer  of  the  First  Epistle  styles  himself  simply  "  Peter  an 
Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ;  "  in  this  he  styles  himself  "Simon  Peter," 
and  refers  to  his  being  with  Christ,  and  hearing  the  voice,  "This  is 
my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  when  he  was  with 
him  in  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  which  he  calls  "the  holy 
mount."  In  chap,  i,  14  he  refers  to  Christ's  foretelling  his  death, 
which  he  says  is  near.  In  this  there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to 
John  xxi.  1 8,  19.  In  chap,  iii,  i  he  states  that  this  is  his  Second 
Epistle  to  his  readers.  We  have  already  seen  that  this  Epistle,  from 
the  first  verse,  seems  to  be  a  general  one,  while  the  first  is  directed 
to  the  Churches  in  certain  provinces  of  Asia  Minor. 

Between  chapters  ii,  iii,  1-3,  of  this  Epistle  and  that  of  Jude  there 
similarity  be-  ™  a  verv  striking  resemblance.  The  most  of  the  dis- 

tween passages   tinguished  modern  critics  regard  Tude  as  the  original 

of  Second  Peter    _,,  . 

and  the  Epistle    I  he  allusions  in  Jude  to  the  Old   Testament  and   to 

of  Jude.  angels  seem  more  natural  than  they  do  in  Second  Peter. 

And  if  we  look  at  the  matter  in  the  light  of  probabilities,  it  is  far 
more  probable  that  Jude  should  be  the  original  than  Second  Peter, 
for  if  the  latter  had  been  already  written,  there  would  have  been 
no  need  of  Jude's  single  chapter,  for  it  was  substantially  found  in 
Second  Peter.  But  in  the  latter  the  similar  passages  are  simply 


736  INTRODUCTIUM  TO  THE  STUDY 

indirect  paraphrased  quotations.  The  false  teachers  who  have  al 
ready  appeared  in  Jude  are  predicted  in  Second  Peter,  and  after 
ward  described  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  appear  that  they  had 
already  come  upon  the  stage  (chap.  ii).  It  is  not  probable  that 
Peter  would  have  followed  Jude  in  this  way.  If  we  look  at  the 
style  of  the  two  Epistles  attributed  to  Peter,  we  find  that  the  Greek 
of  the  Second  is  more  elegant  than  that  of  the  First. 

Cureton  has  translated  from  the  Syriac,  and  published  in  English, 
an  oration  of  Melito  the  philosopher,  addressed  to  An-  A  referenceto 
toninus  Caesar.  This  Melito  was  bishop  of  Sardis  about  second  Peter 
A.  D.  160-170.  In  this  work  occur  the  following  pas- 
sages,  in  which  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  seems  to  have  been  in 
the  mind  of  the  writer.  4<  At  another  time  there  was  a  flood  of 
waters,  and  all  men  and  living  creatures  were  destroyed  by  the  mul 
titude  of  waters,  and  the  just  were  preserved  in  an  ark  of  wood  by 
the  ordinance  of  God.  So  also  it  will  be  at  the  last  time;  there 
shall  be  a  flood  of  fire,  and  the  earth  shall  be  burnt  up  together  with 
its  mountains,  and  men  shall  be  burnt  up  together  with  the  idols 
which  they  have  made,  and  with  the  graven  images  which  they  have 
worshipped  ;  and  the  sea,  together  with  its  isles,  shall  be  burnt,"  * 
etc. 

If  this  is  a  genuine  oration  of  Melito — and  the  probabilities  seem 
in  its  favour — the  passage  is  the  first  probable  reference  to  Second 
Peter,  in  which  alone  of  the  New  Testament  writings  the  doctrine  of 
the  destruction  of  the  earth  by  fire  is  found.  Yet  it  must  be  remem 
bered  that  the  Stoics  taught  that  the  world  was  destined  to  be  de 
stroyed  by  a  vast  conflagration.  And  it  is  possible  that  the  idea  in 
the  oration  of  Melito  may  have  come  from  that  source,  though  it  is 
more  probable  that  it  came  from  Second  Peter. 

Origen,  in  commenting  on  the  book  of  Joshua,  says,  "  Peter  sounds 
the  two  trumpets  of  his  Epistles."2  But  in  Eusebius  he  says:  "Peter 
left  one  acknowledged  Epistle  ;  let  it.be  granted  (that  he  left)  a  Sec 
ond,  for  it  is  a  matter  of  doubt"8  (d^i^d^erai) .  The  Epistle  is 
placed  by  Eusebius  among  the  disputed  books.4 

It  was  received  as  Peter's  by  the  following  writers  of  the  fourth  cen- 
Recogntzed  tury :  by  Athanasius,6  archbishop  of  Alexandria  ;  Epiphs- 
u^fourtticeS  nius>'  metropolitan  bishop  of  Cyprus  ;  Ambrose,7  bishop 
tury.  of  Milan;  Hilary,8  bishop  of  Poitiers  in  Gaul;  Cyril* 

1  Spicileg.  Syriacum,  p.  51.      a  Horn,  vii,  in  the  translation  of  Rufinus  into  Latin, 
*  In  his  Commentary  on  Psalm  i,  preserved  by  Eusebius,  vi,  cap.  25.         4  Hi,  25 
5  Oratio  i,  Contra  Arianos,  sec.  16.  "  Hseresis,  Ixvi,  64. 

T  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Philip.,  cap.  i.  *  Lib.  i,  18,  De  Trinitate. 

Cafechesis  iv,  De  Decem  Dogmatibus,  xxxvt 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  73? 

bishop  01  Jerusalem  ;  Gregory  Nazianzen,1    who,  however,  remarks 
that  some  thought  but  one  Epistle  of  Peter  should  be  received  ;  Ma- 
earius,2  the  Egyptian ;  and  by  Didymus  of  Alexandria,  who  quotes, 
"  Until  the  day  dawn  and  the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts  "  (chaptei 
i,  19),  as  from  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter. 

Il  was  received  by  Augustine  4  (about  A.  D.  400) ;  and  Jerome, 
of  the  same  age,  remarks  that  "  Peter  wrote  two  Epistles  which  are 
called  Catholic ;  of  which  the  second  is  denied  by  most  persons  to 
be  hi?,  on  account  of  its  style  differing  from  that  of  the  First  Epistle." 6 
It  was  i:ot  received  as  canonical  by  Chrysostom,6  bishop  of  Constan 
tinople  ^about  A.  D.  400).  And  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  (about 
A-  D.  535)  states  that  only  three  Catholic  Epistles,  that  of  James,  one 
of  Peter,  and  one  of  John,  were  found  among  the  Syrians.7 

This  Epistle  obtained  a  very  general  recognition  among  the 
writers  of  the  fourth  century,  although  they  made  little  use  of  it. 
Though  not  found  in  the  early  Peshito-Syriac  version,  nor  in  the 
old  Latin  version,  it  was  incorporated  into  the  versions  of  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries,  namely  :  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  yEthiopic, 
and  Armenian.8  At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  its  genuineness 
was  denied  by  Calvin  and  Erasmus,  at  a  later  period  by 

.    .  .  .      .  ',        The  opinions  of 

Grotms ;  and  in  recent  times  it  has  been  rejected  by  the  reformers 
Semler,  Credner,  De  Wette,  Huther,  Neander,  Bleek,  Stt^wtoSS 
Ewald,  Hilgenfeld,  and  others.  On  the  other  hand,  genuineness  ot 
the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  has  been  defended  by  ! 
Michaelis,  Hug,  Pott,  Heydenreich,  and  others.  It  is  written  with 
,1  great  deal  of  vigor,  and  its  moral  and  religious  doctrines  har 
monize  with  those  of  the  apostles,  as  set  forth  in  their  undoubted 
writings.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  first  chapter,  which  contains 
a  list  of  the  virtues  to  be  added  to  faith  in  order  to  secure  admission 
into  heaven.  There  is  one  subject — the  consummation  of  all  things 
— respecting  which  it  sets  forth  doctrines  peculiar  to  itself.  It  rep 
resents  the  heavens  and  the  earth  as  reserved  unto  the  day  of  judg 
ment,  in  which  "  the  heavens  being  on  fire  shall  be  dissolved,  and 
the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat  "  (chap,  iii,  12).  Bertholdt 
regarded  the  Epistle  as  genuine  with  the  exception  of  chapter  ii, 

1  Carminum,  lib.  i,  ii.  a  Homily  xxxix. 

8  Lib.  i,  xxviii,  De  Trinitate.  At  the  end  of  the  short  exposition  of  Second  Pete: 
by  him  found  in  a  Latin  translation,  it  is  stated,  "  We  must  not  be  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that  this  Epi.-;tle  has  been  falsified  (falsatam  esse),  which,  although  in  public 
use  (publicetur),  is  nevertheless  not  in  the  Canon."  These  words  appear  to  have 
been  added  by  the  translator.  *  De  Doctr.  Christ.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  viii. 

6De  Vir.  Illus.    Petrus.          6Synop.  Scrip.  Sacr.  7  Topog.  Christ.,  lib.  viL 

8  It  was,  no  doubt,  the  Gothic  version,  but  it  is  not  found  in  the  fragments  of  thai 
version  that  have  reached  us. 

VOL.  I.— 47 


733  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

while  Ullmann  held  to  the  Petrine  origin  of  chaptei  i  only.  But 
no  good  ground  exists  for  making  any  such  distinction ;  the  whole 
must  be  ascribed  to  one  author. 


T 


CHAPTER  XL. 

THE     EPISTLE     OF     JUDE. 
THE  PERSON   OF  JUDE. 

HE  writer  of  the  Epistle  styles  himself  "  Jude  the  servant  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James."  But  the  question  is, 
whether  he  is  the  apostle  of  that  name,  the  brother  of  James  (Luke 
vi,  16;  Acts  i,  13),  or  a  uterine  brother  of  Christ  (Matt,  xiii,  55)? 
By  the  writer  calling  himself  the  brother  of  James,  we  naturally 
infer  that  he  means  the  well-known  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem 
in  the  apostolic  age,  in  which  case  his  apostleship  would  depend  on 
that  of  James,  and  stand  or  fall  with  it.  Yet  this  inference  is  not 
certain. 

Respecting  the  field  of  labour  of  the  Apostle  Jude  nothing  is  known; 
and  but  little  is  known  respecting  Jude  the  brother  of  Christ  (Matt, 
xiii,  55).  It  would  seem  that  the  latter  remained  in  Judea,  as  the 
Emperor  Domitian  summoned  his  grandchildren,  and  made  inquiry 
of  them  respecting  their  descent  from  David.1 

CONTENTS. 

The  Epistle  is  addressed  to  the  saints  in  general,  and  consists  of 
but  a  single  chapter,  of  twenty- five  verses,  and  is  directed  against  a 
certain  class  of  ungodly  men  who  are  turning  the  grace  of  God  into 
lasciviousness,  and  "  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  He  refers  to  God's  retributive  justice  in  the  punish 
ment  of  disobedient  Israel,  of  rebellious  angels,  and  of  the  wicked 
men  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  He  gives  a  vivid  figurative  descrip 
tion  of  these  corrupt  men  who  have  crept  into  the  Church,  and  rep 
resents  them  as  speaking  evil  of  dignities,  while  Michael  the  arch 
angel  did  not  use  reproachful  language  toward  the  devil.  He  says 
that  Enoch  prophesied  of  these  men,  and  of  the  Lord's  coming  to 
judgment.  He  affirms  that  the  apostles  of  Christ  foretold  these  las 
civious  mockers.  He  exhorts  his  readers  to  build  themselves  upon 
their  most  holy  faith  and  keep  themselves  in  the  love  of  God,  gives 
'According  to  Hegesippus,  in  Eusebius'  Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  cap.  xx. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  739 

them  directions  respecting  the  saving  of  sinners,  and  closes  with  an 
ascription  of  praise  "  to  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour." 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF   THE    EPISTLE. 

The  Epistle  is  not  found  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  version  of  the 
second  century,  but  it  is  included  in  the  Canon  of  Mu-  opinions  of  t&e 
ratori.  We  find  no  use  of  it  made  by  Irenaeus,  but  it  is  *atnere' 
quoted  by  Clement '  of  Alexandria,  and  by  Tertullian 2  of  Carthage, 
as  the  Apostle  Jude's.  Origen  says  :  '*  Jude  wrote  an  Epistle  of  a 
few  lines,  but  filled  with  words  powerful  in  heavenly  grace."  !  He 
supposes  its  author  was  a  brother  of  Christ.  He  also  says  :  "  If  any 
one  would  also  admit  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  let  him  see,"  4  etc.  It  ap 
pears  that  Origen  had  no  doubt  that  the  Epistle  was  written  by  Jude 
the  brother  of  Christ,  but  the  question  was,  its  canonical  authority. 
In  the  Latin  translation  of  Origen  on  the  Romans,  Jude  is  quoted  as 
an  apostle.  It  is  very  improbable  that  Origen  thus  distinguished 
him  ;  it  is  rather  the  designation  of  Rufinus,  the  translator,  who  took 
liberties  with  the  text. 

Eusebius  places  the  Epistle  among  the  disputed  books.6  He  re 
marks  that  it  is  one  of  the  seven  Epistles  called  Catholic,  and  that 
not  many  of  the  ancients  have  mentioned  it.  "We  nevertheless 
know,"  says  he,  "  that  also  these  (the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude), 
along  with  the  rest,  have  been  publicly  read  in  most  Churches."  '  It 
is  contained  in  the  Canon  of  Cyril 7  of  Jerusalem  (about  A.D.  350)  ; 
a  passage  from  it  is  given  substantially  by  Athanasius.8  It  is  in  the 
Canon '  of  Gregory  Nazianzen  (about  A.  D.  375),  who,  however,  re 
marks  that  some  do  not  receive  it.10  It  was  received  by  Didymus  n 
of  Alexandria  and  Rufinus ia  of  Aquileia  in  the  last  half  of  the  fourth 
century. 

Jerome  remarks  "  on  Jude :  "  He  left  a  short  Epistle,  which  is  one 
of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles.  And  because  testimony  from  the 

1M  '  For  I  wish  you  to  know,'  says  Jude,  'that  God  once  having  saved  the  people 
out  cf  Egypt,' "  etc.  (ver.  5).  Pzedagogi,  iii,  cap.  viii.  Also,  in  reference  to  certain 
heresies  he  says:  "  I  think  Jude  spoke  prophetically  concerning  these  and  similar 
heresies,  '  Likewise  also  these  filthy  dreamers,'  "  etc.  (ver.  8).  Stromata,  iii,  cap.  ii. 

*De  Cultu  Foem.,  lib.  i,  cap.  iii.  'Comment,  in  Matthaeum,  tomus  x. 

4  Ibid.,  tomus  xvii,  30  Both  of  these  passages  we  have  taken  from  the  Greek  text 
of  Origen.  5  Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  cap.  25.  -  Ibid.,  ii,  cap.  23. 

*  Catechesis  iv,  De  Decem  Dogmatibus,  xxxvi.  *  Comment,  in  Psalmum,  149 

•Carminum,  lib.  i.  I0  Idem.,  lib.  ii.  "  He  wrote  an  exposition  of  it. 

"Commentarium  in  Symb.  Apostol.,  37.  w  Lib.  de  Viris  Illus.     fudas. 


740  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch  is  used  in  it,  it  is  rejected  by  very  many 
persons  ;  nevertheless,  it  has  acquired  authority  by  antiquity  and  use, 
and  is  reckoned  among  the  sacred  Scriptures."  It  was  not,  how 
ever,  received  by  Chrysostom.1 

The  Epistle,  though  not  found  in  the  ancient  Syriac  version,  was 
contained  in  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  ^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian  ver 
sions,  and  in  all  probability  in  the  old  Latin  version,  as  the  Epistle 
is  attributed  by  Tertullian  to  Jude  the  apostle. 

The  Christian  writers  of  the  early  centuries  made  little  use  of 
Modem  opin-  this  Epistle,  a  fact  readily  explained  by  its  brevity. 
ion*  Luther  judged  it  to  be  of  little  value,  and  this  was 

also  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  Michaelis,  and  Schleiermacher.  De 
Wette9  attributes  it  to  Jude  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  not  to  the  apos 
tle  of  that  name.  Neander8  is  also  inclined  to  attribute  the  Epistle 
to  the  same  Jude,  and  to  him  it  is  confidently  ascribed  by  Bleek. 
Hilgenfeld  denies  that  it  was  written  either  by  Jude  the  apostle,  or 
by  the  brother  of  the  Lord  of  that  name,  and  refers  its  composition 
to  a  period  not  earlier  than  A.  D.  i4o.&  De  Wette8  observes  that 
most  critics  recognize  the  Epistle  as  genuine. 

The  author  does  not  profess  to  be  an  apostle,  styling  himself 
Jude's  account  simply  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James  ; 
of  Mmseif.  ancj  jjjs  ianguage  seems  to  exclude  him  from  the  number 
of  the  apostles  :  "  But,  beloved,  remember  ye  the  words  which  were 
before  spoken  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  how  they 
told  you  there  should  be  mockers  in  the  last  time."  This  language 
also  indicates  that  the  Epistle  was  written  after  the  death  of  at  least 
most  of  the  apostles. 

Now,  the  very  fact  that  the  author  does  not  wish  to  pass  for  an 
apostle,  and  intimates  that  the  apostolic  age  was  quite  past,  takes 
away  from  the  Epistle  all  suspicion  of  forgery.  Nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  it  that  might  not  have  been  written  by  Jude  the  brother  of  the 
Lord,  who  was  no  apostle. 

But  there  is  a  grave  objection  to  its  being  regarded  as  the  writing 

Quotations   in   of  the  Apostle  Jude.     In   verses  14,  15   he   quotes  the 

Epistle  of  Jude  i     i   T»      i        <•  -^         ,    i 

from    apocry-   apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch,    written  about  the  time  of 

nnai writings.    Christ,  as  a  genuine  production:  "And  Enoch  also,  the 

1  Synopsis  Scrip.  Sac. 

2  Einleitung,  pp.  407-409.  3  Planting  and  Training,  etc.,  p.  392. 

4  Einleitung,  pp.  642-648.          6 Einleitung,  pp.  739-744.         6  Einleitung,  p.  410 

'This  book  of  Enoch  has  in  modern  times  been  found  in  the  Ethiopic  language, 

and  was  translated  into  English  and  published  by  Dr.  Laurence  in  1821.      In  1853 

the  celebrated  Ethiopic  scholar,  Dillmann,  published  a  Gernan  translation  of  the 

book,  with  explanations. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  741 

seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied  of  these,  saying,  Behold  the  Lord 
cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  the  saints,  to  execute  judgment  upon 
all,"  etc.  Tertullian  uses  the  fact  that  Jude  has  quoted  this  book 
as  a  proof  of  its  prophetic  character.1 

In  verse  9  the  Epistle  says :  "  Yet  Michael  the  archangel,  when, 
contending  with  the  devil,  he  disputed  about  the  body  of  Moses, 
durst  not  bring  against  him  a  railing  accusation,  but  said,  The  Lord 
rebuke  thee."  Here  the  writer  quotes  an  apocryphal  book  called 
'AvdkTjipig  Mwvtrewf  (The  Ascension  of  Moses),  as  is  evident  from  the 
following  passage  of  Origen,  in  which,  speaking  concerning  the  seduc 
tion  of  Eve  by  the  serpent,  he  remarks :  "  Concerning  which,  in  the 
Ascension  of  Moses — which  little  book  the  Apostlea  Jude  mentions 
in  his  Epistle — Michael  the  archangel,  disputing  with  the  devil  about 
the  body  of  Moses,  says,  That  the  serpent  inspired  by  the  devil  was 
the  cause  of  the  sin  of  Adam  and  Eve."  * 

THE   TIME   OF   ITS   COMPOSITION. 

It  is  probable  that  the  book  was  written  a  few  years  after  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  Epistle  itself  indicates  that  the  apos 
tolic  age  was  past.  But  there  is  nothing  in  it  to  indicate  that  it  was 
written  in  the  second  century,  as  the  men  against  whom  the  Epistle 
is  directed  are  found  in  the  Church  itself,  not,  as  the  heretics  of 
the  second  century,  outside  of  the  Church.  Heretical  teachers  are 
referred  to,  both  in  the  Apocalypse  and  in  some  of  the  later  Epistles 
of  Paul. 

Credner  and  Ewald  place  its  composition  about  A.  D.  80 ;  Bleek 
a  short  time  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


T 


CHAPTER  XLI. 

THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    GENERAL    OF    JOHN. 

HIS  is  one  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  and  is  addressed  to  no 
particular  Church,  but  is  rather  of  an  encyclical  character.    The 
writer  clearly  sets  forth  the  design  of  his  writing :  "  These  things 

1  De  Cultu  Foem.,  i,  cap.  iii. 

*  This  is  the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus,  and  the  title  Apostle  was  doubtless 
given  by  the  translator,  as  Origen,  in  his  Greek  Commentary  on  Matthew,  says  that 
this  Jude  was  one  of  the  brothers  of  Christ  mentioned  in  Matt,  xiii,  55. 
,  lib.  iii,  cap.  ii,  sec.  I. 


742  INTRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY 

have  I  written  unto  you  that  ye  may  know  that  ye  have  eterna* 
life,  and  that  ye  may  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God  "  (chap. 
v,  13).  It  is  possible  that  the  writer  may  have  had  in  his  mind 
some  of  the  corrupters  of  the  true  doctrine  concerning  Christ,  espec- 
iilly  Cerinthus,  when  he  wrote :  "  This  is  he  who  came  by  water  and 
by  blood,  Jesus  Christ ;  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water  and  by 
blood  "  (chap.  v.  6). 

Ceiintnus  appeared  in  Asia  Minor  in  the  last  part  of  the  first  cen 
tury,  and  taught  "  that  Jesus  was  not  born  of  a  virgin,  but  was  the 
son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  born  like  all  the  rest  of  men,  and  became 
more  just  and  wise  (than  they).  And  after  his  baptism  the  Christ 
came  down  into  him  from  the  power  above  the  universe,  in  the  form 
of  a  dove.  And  then  he  proclaimed  the  unknown  Father,  and  per 
formed  miracles;  and  at  last  the  Christ  flew  away  from  Jesus,  and 
Jesus  suffered  and  rose  again,  but  the  Christ  remained  impassible,  a 
spiritual  being."  *  In  opposition  to  this  John  declares  that  Christ 
passed  through  baptism  and  through  death.  But  in  the  passage : 
"  Every  spirit  that  acknowledgeth  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the 
flesh  is  of  God ;  and  every  spirit  that  does  not  acknowledge  Jesus1 
is  not  of  God  "  (chap,  iv,  2,  3),  there  seems  to  be  a  simple  reference 
to  the  reception  or  rejection  of  Christ. 

The  main  purpose  of  the  Epistle  is  to  enforce  practical  piety;  the 
•me  purpose  of  censure  of  heretical  doctrines  occupies  a  subordinate 
this  Epistle.  position.  The  attempt  of  Hilgenfeld  to  find  in  it  traces 
of  the  gnosticism  of  the  second  century  is  an  entire  failure.  He 
says  that  the  writer  (chap,  iii,  9)  uses  the  gnostic  expression  oneppa 
(seed).  Now,  it  is  true  that  the  Valentinians,  who  derived  their 
tenets  from  Valentinus  (after  A.  D.  140),  and  were  refuted  by  Ir- 
enaeus  (about  A.  D.  180),  did  use  the  word  in  about  the  same  sense 
as  John,  but  it  is  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
derived  the  word  from  them,  especially  as  they  made  great  use  of 
John's  Gospel,  and  doubtless  used  the  Epistle  also. 

ITS  GENUINENESS. 

We  have  already  seen,  in  discussing  the  genuineness  of  John  s 
Puny  accepted  Gospel,  that  this  Epistle  was  everywhere  used  by  the 
by  the  church.  earjy  Church  from  the  first  part  of  the  second  centuiy 
and  was  found  in  all  the  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testament, 
Nowhere  does  there  appear  a  doubt  of  its  having  been  written  by 

1  Hippolytus,  Haeres.  Omnium  Confutatio,  lib.  vii,  33. 
*  We  follow  the  critical  text  of  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  and  omit 
"  Christ  having  come  in  the  flesh." 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  743 

the  Apostle  John.  It  bears  the  clearest  internal  evidence  of  having 
proceeded  from  an  eyewitness  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  from  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 

THE   TIME   OF    ITS    COMPOSITION. 

As  the  Apostle  John  spent  the  latter  part  of  his  life  at  Ephesus, 
where  he  died  in  the  beginning  of  Trajan's  reign  (about  A.  D.  98), 
the  Epistle  must  have  been  written  before  that  time,  though  it  is 
impossible  to  say  how  long.  It  was  probably  written  between  A.  D. 
80  and  90;  but  we  cannot  determine  whether  before  or  after  the 
author  wrote  his  Gospel. 

CONTENTS. 

The  author  begins  by  declaring  that  the  manifestations  of  Christ, 
which  have  been  the  objects  of  his  senses,  he  proclaims  to  his  read 
ers,  that  they  may  share  with  him  a  divine  fellowship,  and  that  their 
joy  may  be  full.  He  affirms  that  God  is  light,  and  that  our  profes 
sion  of  communion  with  him  while  we  walk  in  darkness  is  false ; 
but  that  by  walking  in  the  light  we  have  communion  with  him,  and 
are  cleansed  from  sin  through  Christ.  We  deceive  ourselves  by 
denying  that  we  are  sinners,  and  make  God  a  liar ;  but  by  confessing 
our  sins  we  shall  find  forgiveness  and  deliverance  (chap.  i). 

He  states  that  Christ  is  our  advocate  with  God,  and  the  propitia 
tion  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  and  that  our  knowledge  of  Christ  is  shown 
by  our  obedience  to  him.  He  lays  great  stress  upon  love,  without 
which  we  cannot  enjoy  the  light.  He  describes  the  different  classes 
of  the  saints  to  whom  he  writes,  warns  them  against  the  love  of  the 
world,  refers  to  antichrists,  and  presupposes  on  the  part  of  his 
readers  a  divine  guidance,  and  exhorts  them  to  continue  in  the  truth 
that  they  may  have  confidence  at  Christ's  coming  (chap.  ii). 

He  reminds  them  of  their  high  privileges  and  glorious  hopes,  and 
urges  them  to  holy  living.  He  gives  the  characteristics  of  the 
sinner  and  the  saint,  makes  love  a  prominent  trait  of  the  latter,  and 
affirms  that  he  who  hates  his  brother  is  a  murderer.  He  insisls 
upon  practical  benevolence  as  a  test  of  our  love  to  God,  and  relig 
ious  acts,  not  mere  words.  He  shows  that  a  good  conscience  is  the 
ground  of  confidence  toward  God.  The  keeping  of  his  command 
ment,  to  believe  in  Christ  and  love  each  other,  gives  us  confidence 
in  prayer.  God's  spirit  in  us  is  the  proof  of  his  presence  (chap.  iii). 

He  exhorts  them  to  try  the  spirits,  affirming  that  their  acceptance 
or  rejection  of  Christ  is  the  test  of  their  truth,  or  falsehood.  He  re 
minds  them  that  their  victory  over  the  unbelieving  men  of  the  world 
is  of  God;  and  affirms  that  those  who  are  of  God  hear  him  (the 
writer)  ;  but  those  who  are  not,  hearken  not.  He  exhorts  them  to 


744  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 

love  each  other,  as  love  is  the  test  of  their  knowing  God,  and  de« 
clares  that  perfect  love  casts  out  all  fear  (chap.  iv). 

Those  who  have  faith  in  Christ  are  born  of  God,  and  love  him 
and  Christ.  To  love  God  is  to  keep  his  commandments,  which  are 
not  oppressive.  He  affirms  that  our  faith  in  Christ  is  the  victory 
over  the  world ;  that  Christ  came  by  water  and  by  blood,  and  thai- 
there  are  three  that  bear  witness,  the  Spirit,  the  water  and  the  blood  ; 
that  we  ought  to  receive  God's  testimony  concerning  his  Sons  in 
whom  we  have  eternal  life.  He  says  that  his  design  in  writing  is  that 
they  may  believe  in  Christ  and  have  eternal  life.  He  expresses  con 
fidence  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  speaks  of  a  sin  unto  death,  and  af 
firms  that  while  the  whole  world  lies  in  wickedness,  they  who  are 
born  of  God  are  kept  from  sin  and  from  Satan,  and  that  the  Son  ol 
God  has  given  them  understanding  to  know  Christ,  who  is  the  true 
God  and  eternal  life  (chap.  v). 

THE   GENUINENESS    OF    CHAP.  V,  /. 

*'  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  The  Father,  the 
chapter  v,  7,  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one." 
spurious.  The  above  is  the  reading  of  the  English  version,  based 
on  the  received  text,  but  the  verse  is  certainly  spurious,  as  it  is 
wanting  in  the  three  most  ancient  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
Codices  Vaticanus,  and  Sinaiticus  of  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury,  and  the  Alexandrinus  of  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  of  about  the  middle  of  the  second  cen 
tury.  If  we  begin  with  chapter  v,  6,  we  read  as  follows  in  the  Codex 
Vaticanus,  and  in  this  very  ancient  version :  "  This  is  he  who  came 
by  water  and  by  blood,  Jesus  Christ,  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water 
and  by  blood.  And  it  is  the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  for  the 
Spirit  is  truth  ;  because  there  are  three  that  bear  witness,  the  Spirit 
and  the  water  and  the  blood,  and  the  three  are  for  (agree  in)  one. 
If  we  receive  the  testimony  of  men,"1  etc.  The  verse  under  con 
sideration  is  wanting,  also,  as  Tischendorf  informs  us,  in  all  the 
Greek  MSS.  except  two,  one  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  other,  a 
Greek-Latin,  of  about  the  fifteenth  century.  It  is  wanting  in  the 
Feshito-Syriac,  as  we  have  already  seen,  and  in  the  Memphitic, 
Thebaic,  Armenian,  and  ^Ethiopic  versions;  and  in  the  Codex 

1  The  text  of  Tischendorf  ajrd  Tregelles,  which  gives  substantially  the  reading  ->f  tie 
three  most  ancient  MSS.,  is  :  "  Oirof  iartv  &  eA#wv  oY  vdaroc  nal  afymrof  *lrjcovf  Xpto- 
rof  OVK.  iv  r(jj  vAart  (JLOVOV  aXX*  tv  T£>  vSart  Koi  kv  r<jj  al/uart*  Kal  TO  irvcvtjtf,  ionv  TO 
itaprvpovv,  on  TO  irvsvpd  kaTiv  rj  a?,^$eta.  OTI  Tpelf  eialv  61  fiaprvpovvTss,  TO  irvcvpa 
Kai  TO  i»<5(jp  nai  TO  at/za,  KO.I  ol  Tpflf  «f  TO  ?i>  eiaiv.  Cod.  Sinait.  adds  Trvevjuarof  aftei 
;  the  Cod.  Alex,  does  the  same,  and  has  irvetinaTi  instead  of  vdan  in  verse  6 


OF  THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  745 

Amiatinus  of  Florence,  of  the  sixth  century,  containing  Jerome's 
Latin  version. 

Not  only  is  the  authority  of  MSS.  and  versions  opposed  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  verse,  but  Tischendorf  remarks  :  "  It  is  likewise 
condemned  by  all  the  Greek  Fathers,  who  cultivated  letters  in  the 
first  ten  centuries  after  Christ  and  later.  But  the  interpolation  is  a 
Latin  one,  although  it  remained  unknown  to  the  most  ancient  and 
the  most  celebrated  Latin  Codices  and  Fathers  themselves,  nor  was 
it  published  by  Jerome.  It  seems  first  to  have  made  its  appearance, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Speculum,  rather  in  the  fourth 
than  in  the  fifth  century,  although  in  these  centuries,  and  also  after 
ward,  there  were  many,  as  Augustine  and  Jerome,  as  Leo  the  Great 
(t  461 ;  he  copied  the  whole  context  of  John,  in  his  celebrated  Epis 
tle  to  Flavian,  read  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon)  and  Facundus 
(t  about  570),  who  condemned  the  text  by  their  silence.  It  is  an 
error  of  an  exceedingly  grave  character,  if  any  persons,  because  the 
Church  of  Christ  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  have 
thought  that  they  should  especially  depend  upon  these  words  foisted 
upon  John."1  Tregelles  remarks  :  "  The  more  ancient  Latin  Codices 
do  not  contain  these  words.  They  were  first  inserted  on  the  margin 
of  Latin  Codices,  and  afterward  in  the  text." 

In  the  first  printed  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  published 
in  1514  as  a  part  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  i  John  j^  a  ear_ 
v,  7  was  inserted.  The  famous  Erasmus  then  inquired  ance  of  this 
of  Stunica  by  what  authority  the  editors  had  inserted  panted  tex/of 
that  verse,  "  and  whether  they  really  had  MSS.  so  differ-  the  Greek  Test- 
ent  from  any  that  Erasmus  himself  had  seen  :  to  this  the 
answer  was  given  by  Stunica,  '  You  must  know  that  the  copies  of  the 
Greeks  are  corrupted  ;  that  ours,  however,  contain  the  very  truth.'  " ' 
Erasmus  omitted  the  verse  in  the  first  two  editions  of  his  Greek 
Testament;  but  in  his  third  edition,  published  in  1522,  he  inserted 
the  verse,  since,  he  said,  it  was  contained  in  a  Greek  MS.  found 
among  the  English,  that  by  so  doing  he  might  avoid  calumny.*  After 
this  it  made  its  appearance  in  "  the  editions  of  Robert  Stephens, 
1546-1569  ;  in  the  editions  of  Beza,  1565-1576.  From  them  it  passed 
over  into  the  editions  of  the  Elzevirs  "  (Tischendorf). 

1  From  the  Latin  of  his  Eighth  Critical  Edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
1  Fregelles,  Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  9,  10. 
1  He  states  that  he  suspects  that  this  verse  in  the  Greek  Codex  has  been  inserted 
to  conform  it  to  the  Latin  Codices,  and  yet,  to  avoid  calumny,  he  inserts  it     No 
wonder  he  bad  not  courage  enough  to  embrace  the  Reformation. 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDV 


CHAPTER  XLII. 

THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    OF    JOHN. 

rTAHIS  Epistle  contains  but  thirteen  verses,  and,  according  to  the 
•*•  English  version,  it  is  addressed  to  "  the  elect  lady."  Neander 
and  Bleek  take  the  Greek  word,  «vpta,  rendered  lady,  for  the  proper 
name  of  the  woman,  Kuria,  in  English  Cyria,  which  De  Wette  fa 
vours.  Robinson  observes  that  the  name  was  not  "unusual  among 
the  Greeks  "  (Greek  Lexicon).  This  view  seems  quite  probable,  as 
it  is  likely  the  woman's  name  would  be  given,  as  the  man's  name 
(Gaius)  is  given  in  the  Third  Epistle.  The  writer  expresses  his 
love  for  her  and  her  children  as  possessors  of  the  truth,  and  his  joy 
in  finding  them  walking  in  the  truth,  and  urges  upon  them  the  duty 
of  loving  each  other,  and  walking  after  the  commandments  of  God. 
He  warns  them  against  deceivers,  who  do  not  acknowledge  that 
Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  and  affirms  that  the  only  way  to  possess 
the  Father  is  to  abide  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Son.  He  warns  them 
against  receiving  into  their  house  or  imploring  God's  favour  upon 
those  who  teach  a  different  doctrine.  He  has  much  to  write,  but 
prefers  to  speak  face  to  face,  as  he  expects  to  come  shortly  to  her. 

THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    EPISTLE. 

This  Epistle  was,  doubtless,  written  by  the  Apostle  John,  as  it 
bears  the  genuine  impress  of  his  writing;  nor  does  the  fact  that  the 
writer  calls  himself  simply  "  The  elder  "  militate  against  the  apos 
tolic  authorship. 

Irenaeus  *  quotes  verse  n,  with  the  prefix  :  "  For  John,  the  disciple 
of  the  Lord,  says."  Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  i  John  v,  16,  17 
with  the  remark :  "  And  John  is  seen  to  show  in  the  larger  Epistle 
that  there  are  different  kinds  of  sins."9  This  shows  that  he  reccg^ 
nized  at  least  two  Epistles  of  John.  Tertullian,  discussing  long 
quotations  which  he  had  taken  from  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  speaks 
of  them  as  what  John  asserts  in  his  "  First  Epistle  "  (inprima  quidem 
Ephiola s),  which  shows  his  knowledge  of  one  other  at  least.  Cyprian 
quotes  numerous  passages  from  the  First  Epistle  of  John ;  he  nevtt 
quotes  it,  however,  as  the  First  Epistle,  but  speaks  of  it  as  his  Epistle 

'Contra  Haereses,  lib.  i,  cap.  xvi,  3.  •Stromata,  ii,  cap.  xv. 

1  Liber  de  Pudicitia.  cap.  xix. 


OF  THE    HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  747 

nor  does  he  give  any  hint  of  another.  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexan* 
dria  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  speaks  of  a  Second  and  a 
Third  Epistle  ascribed  to  the  Apostle  John.1  Origen,  after  remarking 
that  the  Apostle  John  left  one  Epistle  of  a  very  few  lines,  adds: 
"  Let  it  be  granted  (that  he  left)  a  Second  and  a  Third  ;  for  all  do  not 
affirm  that  these  are  genuine,  but  both  of  them  are  not  of  a  hundred 
lines."3  Eusebius,  after  stating  that  the  First  Epistle  of  John  was  ac 
knowledged  without  dispute,  both  by  the  Christians  of  his  time  and 
by  the  ancients,  says:  "But  the  remaining  two  are  disputed."1 

In  the  Canon  of  Muratori  two  Epistles  of  John  are  recognized,  of 
which  one  is  our  First  Epistle,  from  which  a  part  of  the  first  verse  is 
given.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  other  is  our  present  Second  Epis 
tle.  This  Epistle,  and  also  the  Third  of  John,  are  wanting  in  the 
ancient  Syriac  version ;  nor  were  they  received  by  the  Syrian 
Church  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century,  according  to  the  testi 
mony  of  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  who  flourished  at  that  time.  It  is, 
however,  found  in  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  ^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian 
versions.  Jerome  remarks  that  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of 
John  "  are  asserted  to  be  those  of  the  presbyter  John,  of  whom  another 
tomb  is  shown,  even  to-day,  at  Ephesus,  although  some  suppose  that 
both  monuments  belong  to  the  same  John  the  evangelist."  4 

The  Epistle  was  not  in  the  canon  of  Chrysostom,  but  it  formed  a 
part  of  that  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  of  Rufinus,  of  Epiphanius,  and  of 
Augustine.  Its  genuineness  is  acknowledged  by  Bleek  and  Neander, 
and  favoured  by  De  Wette. 


CHAPTER  XLIII. 

THE    THIRD    EPISTLE    OF    JOHN. 

T'HE  address  of  this  Epistle  is:  "The  elder  to  the  beloved 
Gaius."  Several  persons  of  this  name  are  mentioned  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  (xix,  29;  xx,  4),  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  (xvi,  23),  and  in  the  First  to  the  Corinthians  (chap,  i,  14). 
The  same  person  is  referred  to  in  the  two  passages  of  Paul's  Epis 
tles  ;  and  it  appears  that  he  lived  at  Corinth.  Another  Gaius  was 
of  Derbe,  and  a  third  is  called  a  Macedonian.  But  it  is  not  prob 
able  that  any  of  these  is  the  Gaius  here  addressed,  who  probably 
lived  in  Asia  Minor  not  very  far  from  Ephesus. 

1  In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vii,  cap.  xxv.  'Ibid.,  vi,  cap.  xxv. 

'Ibid.,  iii,  cap.  xxiv.  4De  Viris  Illustribus.     Joannea 


748  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

The  apostle  having  learned  of  the  piety  of  Gaius,  and  the  hospi 
tality  he  had  shown  to  Christian  missionaries,  who  were  of  the  Jewish 
nation  it  would  seem,  writes  the  Epistle  to  him  to  express  his 
hearty  approval  of  his  conduct.  He  prays  that  the  prosperity  and 
health  of  Gaius  may  be  equal  to  his  piety.  He  states  that,  notwith 
standing  the  fact  that  he  had  written  to  the  Church  to  aid  the  Chiis- 
tian  missionaries,  Diotrephes  not  only  does  not  receive  them,  but 
also  speaks  evil  of  him,  and  prevents  those  willing  to  do  this  service 
and  casts  them  out  of  the  Church. 

He  exhorts  Gaius  not  to  imitate  the  evil  but  the  good,  affirming 
that  he  who  does  good  is  of  God,  but  that  the  evil  doer  has  not  seen 
God.  He  observes  that  all  men  and  the  truth  itself  bear  witness  to 
Demetrius,  to  which  testimony  he  adds  his  own.  He  adds  that  he 
has  many  things  to  write,  but  is  not  willing  to  put  them  upon  paper, 
as  he  expects  to  see  Gaius  shortly,  and  closes  with  salutations. 

THE    GENUINENESS    OF   THE    EPISTLE. 

The  Epistle  bears  the  impress  of  John's  style,  and,  doubtless, 
was  written  by  him.  Though  not  found  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  ver 
sion,  it  was  nevertheless  incorporated  into  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic, 
-^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian  versions.  It  is  also  found  in  the  canon  of 
Cyril,  Rufinus,  and  Augustine,  though  it  had  been  placed  among  the 
disputed  writings  by  Origen  and  Eusebius.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
reckoned  it  among  the  canonical  books,  though  he  says  that  some 
acknowledge  but  one  Epistle  of  John. 

Its  genuineness  is  acknowledged  by  Bleek,1  and  favoured  by 
Neander8  and  De  Wette.'  We  have  not  been  able  to  find  extracts 
from  it  in  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries  after  Christ ;  but 
this  is  not  at  all  surprising  when  we  remember  its  brevity,  and  the 
fact  that  it  was  addressed  to  a  private  individual. 

The  principal  source  of  doubt  respecting  the  Second  and  Third  of 
John's  Epistles  arose  from  his  styling  himself  "  The  elder,"  and  from 
the  fact  that  they  were  excluded  from  the  Syriac  version,  and  because 
they  had  been  doubtless  but  little  read  in  the  earliest  Church,  as 
being  private  letters,  and  had  been  seldom  or  never  quoted  by  the 
earliest  ecclesiastical  writers. 

'Einleitung,  pp.  696,  697.  "Planting  and  Training,  etc.,  pp.  409,  410 

"  Einleitung,  pp.  403,  404. 


OF  THE  HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 


T4D 


CHAPTER  XLIV. 

THE     APOCALYPSE. 

book,  which  closes  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  is  almost 
wholly  unlike  any  other  of  the  New  Testament.  No  part  ot 
the  Bible  is  so  highly  symbolical ;  it  abounds  in  the  most  striking 
and  awful  imagery.  Nothing  can  be  more  sublime  than  the  descrip 
tion  of  our  Saviour  in  the  opening  chapter;  and  the  mighty  events 
in  the  history  of  the  Church  are  set  forth  in  symbols  and  language 
of  almost  equal  sublimity.  Even  the  addresses  to  the  seven 
Churches,  which,  of  course,  are  didactic,  assume  an  earnest  and 
lofty  tone.  John  reaches  the  loftiest  heights  without  effort.  He 
borrows,  it  is  true,  a  part  of  his  imagery  from  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
but  he  by  no  means  slavishly  copies  them ;  in  some  respects  he  sur 
passes  them.  His  descriptions  are  more  lifelike  and  more  terrible. 
He  carries  us  to  the  throne  of  God,  shows  us  the  eternal,  the  mag 
nificent  court  of  heaven,  the  glorified  saints,  and  the  forces  and 
weapons  which  the  Almighty  employs  in  the  destruction  of  his  foes. 
But  amid  all  the  storms  of  divine  wrath,  amid  thunderings  and  earth 
quakes,  he  never  loses  sight  of  God's  people  ;  he  represents  them  as 
secure. 

This  divine  panorama,  beginning  with  the  appearance  of  Christ  in 
a  glorified  state,  unfolds  the  mighty  conflict  waged  for  centuries  be  • 
tween  Christianity  and  paganism,  resulting  in  the  complete  over 
throw  of  the  latter,  and  closes  with  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
eternal  judgment,  and  the  creation  of  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness. 

ITS   LINGUISTIC   CHARACTER. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  book  is  remarkable.  It  has 
more  Hebraisms  and  irregular  constructions  than  any  Numeroua  He- 
other  in  the  New  Testament.  The  following  are  exam-  braismsof  t.ta 
pies  of  Hebraisms :  Olg  kdo^  avrolg  adiKrjaat  TT)V  yrjv,  AP°calyPse- 
K.  T.  A.  (chap,  vii,  2),  literally,  to  whom  it  was  given  to  them  to  hurt  the 
earth,  the  relative  and  the  personal  pronoun,  both  used  for  the  iela- 
tive  simply;  "Ov  apti9p?cr<u  avrov  ovdelg  kdvvaro,  which  no  one  was 
able  to  number  /'/  (chap,  vii,  9)  ;  r\v  ovdel$  dvvarai  itteloai  avrrjv, 
which  no  one  is  able  to  shut  it  (chap,  iii,  8)  ;  wv  6  apttfjudf  avra>v, 
of  which  the  number  of  them  (chap,  xx,  8).  That  these  construe- 


750  INTRODUCTION    1O   THE   STUDY 

tions  are  Hebraistic  there  can  be  no  doubt;  compare  for  example; 
n'unr  -itfx,  which  its  seed  in  //,  for  wherein  is  its  seed  (Gen.  i,  12). 
Hebraistic  also  is  the  construction,  "Orrov  rj  yvvri  KddrjTai  CTT'  avrwv, 
where  the  woman  sitteth  upon  them  (chap,  xvii,  9),  for  whereon  the 
woman  sitteth.  The  following  passage  is  to  be  explained  as  Hebra 
istic  :  Kal  Srav  S&aovat,  .  .  .  neaovvrai  .  .  .  TrpooKwijaovat,  .  .  .  j3aAoio< 
"  And  when  the  living  creatures  will  give  glory  and  honour  and  thanks 
to  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  to  him  that  liveth  for  ever  and 
ever,  the  four  and  twenty  elders  will  fall  down  before  him  that  sit 
teth  upon  the  throne,  and  they  will  worship  him  that  liveth  for  ever 
and  ever,  and  they  will  cast  their  crowns  before  him  "  (chap,  iv, 
9,  10).  To  indicate  what  is  customary,  the  Hebrew  language  uses 
the  future  tense,  showing:  that  the  state  or  action  is  so,  not  only  now, 
but  will  be  for  the  future.  Hence  the  passage  indicates  what  is 
continually  done  in  heaven. 

The  use  of  the  participle  is  peculiar;  instead  of  its  being  con- 
Pecuiiartttesin  struec^  with  a  finite  verb,  it  sometimes  stands  absolute  in 
the  use  of  the  the  nominative  form  :  £#6>v,  holding  in  his  right  hand  ; 


tuTTopevopevrj,  a  sword  proceeding  from  his  mouth  (chap. 
i,  1  6)  ;  £TT£  rov  $povov  /cai9?7/z£voc,  one  sitting  on  the  throne  (chap,  iv,  2), 
etc.  We  are  strongly  inclined  to  regard  this  construction  as  He 
braistic.  For  a  similar  use  of  the  participle  compare  Ecclesiastes 
i,  4  :  fcO  Thi  ^Sn  "\n,  one  generation  goes,  another  comes.  fO  Mt^a^A 
Kal  ol  ayyeAAo*  avrov  Troheprjaai  fiera  rov  dpa/tovrof  ,*  Michael  and  his 
angels  to  fight  (were  to  fight,  fought)  with  the  dragon  (chap,  xii,  7). 
The  construction  of  the  infinitive  7roAe/z7/<7<M,  to  fight,  with  the  nomina 
tive,  seems  to  be  without  a  parallel  in  Greek,9  but  it  is  clearly  He 
braistic,  and  the  verb  elvai  is  to  be  supplied  before  it.  Compare  m- 
ni'fetf1?,  what  to  do,  what  is  to  do  (2  Kings  iv,  13)  ?  'JjrBn'n1?  mrr,  Jehovah 

-;,.  '    **      *  '        ,T.      * 

to  save  me,  that  is,  he  is  to  save  me,  does  save  me  (Isa  xxxviii,  20)  ;  and 
t2r"nn"j<S,  not  to  drive  out,  did  not  drive  out,  or  could  not  drive  out 
(Judges  i,  19).  Quite  similar  is  the  construction,  f)  &govota  avr&v 
ddinrjffat,  their  power  to  hurt  (chap,  ix,  10). 

Exceedingly  harsh  and  irregular  is  the  following  passage  :  'Evralf 
fjfiepais  'A-vreiTrag  6  judprv^  jttov  6  maro^  jLtov,  8$  aTreKTavdrj  Trap*  vfjttv 
6nov  6  oaravds  Karoiicsl  (chap,  ii,  13),  in  the  days  Antipas  my  faithful 
martyr,  who  was  slain  among  you  where  Satan  dwelleth.  Here  we 
must  supply  the  verb  to  be  or  to  live,  to  agree  with  Antipas.  The  con 
struction  is  probably  Hebraistic,  as  the  verb  to  be  is  often  omitted  in 
the  Hebrew  language  where  it  is  required  in  Greek,  and  especially  in 

1  The  text  adopted  by  Tregelles  ;  Tischendorf  omits  rov  before 
'Different  is  the  emphatic  o-urof  with  an  infinitive. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  751 

English.  'Arrd  6  &v  nal  6  TJV  ical  b  ep^o^evoc,  From  him  who  is,  and 
who  was,  and  who  is  to  come  (chap,  i,  4).  Here  we  would  expect  the 
genitive  after  and ;  it  is  probable,  however,  that  the  phrase  6  d>?'  was 
regarded  as  indeclinable.  *O  vf/cwv,  da)<76>  avrw  fcadiaat  per9  fytov, 
it.  r.  A.,  The  one  who  conquers,  to  him  will  I  give  to  sit  doivn  with  me,  etc. 
(chap,  iii,  21),  is  obviously  an  anacoluthon.  Anomalous  is  the  con 
necting  of  the  present  and  the  future  tense  by  itai:  "Ep^ojiia/  aoi 
*ai  MV7]<jo)  rrjv  hvxyiav  <rov,  «.  r.  A.,  I  am  coming  to  thee  quickly,  and 
will  remove  thy  candlestick  (chap,  ii,  5). 

There  aie  some  other  irregularities,  but  not  of  so  striking  a  char 
acter.  But,  after  all,  the  most  of  the  language  is  as  regular  in  its 
construction  as  it  is  in  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
scarcely  less  so  than  in  some  parts  of  Thucydides. 

THE   TIME   OF   ITS   COMPOSITION. 

Irenaius,  bishop  of  Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202),  is  the  first  writer  who 
bears  testimony  to  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  Mogt  robably 
Apocalypse  :  "  For  had  it  been  necessary,"  says  he,  "  that  written  in  the 
his  name  (the  name  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast)  should  be  tlmeof  Nero- 
clearly  announced  at  this  present  time,  it  certainly  would  have  been 
proclaimed  by  him  who  saw  the  Apocalypse.  For  it  was  seen  not 
a  long  time  ago,  but  almost  in  our  own  generation,  at  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Domitian."1  According  to  this  statement,  the  book  was 
written  about  A.  D.  95,  as  Domitian 's  reign  extended  from  A.  D.  81 
to  96.  This  testimony  is  valuable  from  the  fact  that  Irenseus  spent 
the  early  part  of  his  life  in  Asia  Minor,  and  was  acquainted  with 
Polycarp,  a  disciple  of  John.  Yet  Irenseus  may  have  obtained  no 
traditional  knowledge  upon  the  subject,  and  may  have  determined 
the  time  by  critical  conjecture. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  president  of  its  catechetical  school  (A.  D. 
191-200),  states  that  John  "returned  to  Ephesus  from  the  island 
Patmos,  when  the  tyrant  was  dead."*  He  does  not  state  what  tyrant, 
and  yet  it  is  probable  that  by  this  term  he  designates  the  emperor 
who  was  pre-eminently  the  tyrant,  Nero.  But  if  Domitian  is  the 
tyrant  to  whom  Clement  refers,  then  the  return  of  John  from  Patmo? 
could  not  have  been  earlier  than  the  close  of  the  year  96,  as  Do 
mitian  was  assassinated  in  September  of  that  year.  John  probably 
did  not  live  more  than  two  or  three  years  after  his  return,  as  Ire 
nseus  states  that  he  lived  until  the  times  of  Trajan,  whose  reign 
began  A.  D.  98.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  he  survived  long  after  the 
beginning  of  this  monarch's  reign,  as  at  this  time  he  must  have  been 
between  ninety  and  one  hundred  years  of  age. 

'Lib  v,  cap.  xxx,  sec.  3.  •  Lib.  Quis  Dives  Salvetur,  cap.  xlii 


752  IISTROJ AUCTION   TO   THE    STUDY 

Now,  the  incidents  that  Clement  relates  of  John,  after  the  return 
Nero  identical  from  Patmos  to  Ephesus,  cannot  well  be  crowded  into 
mentioneTTy  two  or  tnree  years,  and  some  of  them  do  not  suit  a  man 
Clement.  of  his  age  at  that  time.  Clement  states  that  after  John 

returned  to  Ephesus  from  Patmos  he  went  by  invitation  to  the 
neighbouring  nations,  where  he  appointed  bishops  and  orgarized 
Churches,  and  while  engaged  in  this  work  he  saw  a  young  man  o( 
fine  form  and  mien,  whom  he  intrusted  to  the  bishop  of  the  place,  to 
be  trained  in  Christianity,  after  which  the  apostle  departed  to  Epht- 
sus.  "  The  presbyter,  having  taken  home  the  young  man  intrusted 
to  him,  nourished,  kept,  cherished,  and  finally  instructed  him."  But 
after  he  had  baptized  the  young  man,  he  somewhat  relaxed  his  dili 
gent  care  of  him.  In  the  course  of  time  the  young  man  is  corrupted 
by  some  of  his  own  age,  whom  he  forms  into  a  band  of  robbers, 
and  becomes  their  leader.  John  visited  the  bishop,  and  demanded  of 
him  the  ward  he  had  committed  to  him.  The  apostle  was  informed 
that  the  young  man  was  dead  to  God  and  had  become  a  robber, 
upon  which,  exhibiting  strong  marks  of  grief,  John  borrowed  a  horse 
and  went  in  pursuit  of  him,  and  was  conducted  by  a  guide  to  his 
abode.  The  young  man  is  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  his  guilt, 
weeps  bitterly,  and  is  restored  to  the  Church.1 

It  seems  utterly  impossible,  at  least  very  improbable,  that  all  this 
could  have  occurred  after  the  year  96,  and  that  John  at  his  great 
age  should  have  travelled  on  foot  through  the  regions  adjacent  to 
Ephesus.  Hence  we  are  led  to  infer  that  his  return  from  Patmos 
must  have  been  years  earlier,  and  that  the  tyrant  to  whom  Clement 
refers  was  Nero. 

Origen,  in  commenting  on  Matt,  xx,  23,  remarks :  "  The  king  of 
the  Romans,  as  tradition  teaches,  condemned  John,  who  bore  testi 
mony  on  account  of  the  word  of  truth,  to  the  island  of  Patmos. 
John  shows  the  following  things  concerning  his  own  testimony,  not 
stating  who  condemned  him,  affirming  in  the  Apocalypse  :  '  I  John, 
who  am  your  brother,'  etc.,  .  .  .  and  it  appears  that  he  saw  the 
Apocalypse  in  the  island."5  From  this  it  seems  that  Origen  was 
not  certain  what  emperor  had  banished  John  to  Patmos. 

Tertullian  of  Carthage,  speaking  of  the  sufferings  of  Peter  and 
Paul  at  Rome,  says  :  "  Where  the  Apostle  John,  alter  he  had  been 
thrown  into  boiling  oil  and  received  no  injury,  is  banished  to  an 

*We  have  abridged  Clement's  account,  which  he  calls  "no  fable,  but  a  real  nar 
rative  respecting  John  the  Apostle."  Quis  Dives  Salvetur?  cap.  xlii.  Clement  as 
early  as  A.  D.  170  or  175  travelled  extensively  in  western  Asia  and  in  southern  Europe, 
and  in  various  places  he  had  Christian  teachers.  The  narrative  bears  the  stamp  o/ 
truth.  a  Tomus  xvi,  6. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  733 

island."1  It  would  seem  from  the  context  that  Tertullian  referred 
the  banishment  to  the  time  of  Nero.  No  reliance  is  to  be  placed 
upon  the  statement  that  John  was  thrown  into  boiling  oil.  Had  it 
been  true,  we  doubtless  would  have  heard  of  it  from  some  other 
writers. 

Eusebius,  speaking  of  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  by  Do- 
tnitian,  remarks:  "At  this  time  it  is  reported 


,  ,  N     .  Mention  of  the 

Aoyo?,  the  story  goes)  that  the  Apostle,  and  at  the  same   time  of  banisn- 

time  evangelist,  John,  being  still  alive,  was  condemned   ™entby  £use- 
.  .  .  bins    and    Jo- 

to  dwell  in  the  island  Patmos  on  account  of  his  testimony   rome. 

to  the  divine  word."5 

Epiphanius  in  the  last  half  of  the  fourth  century  states  that  John 
returned  from  Patmos  in  the  time  of  Claudius  Caesar  '  (A.  D.  41-54) 
Jerome  says  that  "  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse  when  banished  to  the 
island   Patmos  by  Domitian,  who,  after  Nero,  stirred  up  a  second 
persecution  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  his  reign."  * 

The  titlepage  of  the  Apocalypse  in  the  Syriac  version  states  that 
the  book  was  written  in  Nero's  time.6  The  value  of  this  testimony, 
however,  is  diminished  by  the  fact  that  the  present  version  of  the 
Apocalypse  in  Syriac  does  not  belong  to  the  Peshito,  but  to  the 
Philoxenian  version,  made  about  A.  D.  500. 

There  is  nothing  satisfactory  in  the  foregoing  statements  of  the 
early  fathers  respecting  John's  banishment,  yet  the  most  of  the  tes 
timony  points  to  the  reign  of  Domitian  as  the  period  during  which 
John's  abode  in  Patmos  occurred,  and  consequently  when  the  book 
was  written.  But  internal  evidence  points  rather  to  the  latter  part 
of  Nero's  reign  as  the  time  of  its  composition  (about  A.  D.  68).  The 
author  himself  states  that  he  was  in  the  island  called  Patmos  for 
the  word  of  God  and  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus  (dia  rdv  Aoyov  rov 
Qeov  Kal  did  TTJV  fiaQrvpiav  'Iqaov)  (chap,  i,  9).  The  inference  to  be 
drawn  from  this  is,  that  he  either  took  refuge  there  to  escape  his 
persecutors,  or  was  banished  there.  It  is  true  that  if  Patmos  had 
been  a  populous  island  at  the  time  we  might  suppose  that  he  went 
there  to  preach  the  gospel.  But  it  is  incredible  that  John  would 
leave  the  populous  cities  to  preach  the  gospel  in  an  island  that  must 
have  been  but  sparsely  populated.  From  this  passage  we  infer  that 
the  book  was  written  during  a  persecution  of  the  Christians,  and 
there  are  other  passages  that  indicate  the  same  thing. 

1  Ubi  Apostolus  Joannes,  posteaquam,  in  oleum  igneum  demersus,  nihil  passus  est, 
in  insulam  relegatur.  Proescrip.,  cap.  xxxvi.  "Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  cap.  xviii. 

3  Hzeresis  li,  cap.  12.  4  De  Viris  Illus.     Joannes. 

*  "  The  revelation  that  was  made  to  the  Evangelist  John  from  God  in  the  iste  of 
Patmos,  to  which  he  was  banished  by  Nero  Caesar."     Bagster's  Edition. 
VOL.  I.—  48 


7*54  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   STUDY 

During  the  first  century  there  were  but  two  persecutions  of  any 
note,  those  of  Nero  and  Domitian.     Under  the  reis:n  of 

proo~ 


ability  of  the  one  of  these  Caesars,  our  book,  in  all  probability,  had 
STSSSjpS  its  oriSin-  Respecting  the  persecution  of  Nero,  Neander 
in  the  time  of  remarks  :  "  This  persecution  was  not,  indeed,  in  its  im 
mediate  effects,  a  general  one  ;  but  fell  exclusively  on 
the  Christians  in  Rome,  accused  as  the  incendiaries  of  the  city  ,  yet 
what  had  occurred  in  the  capital  could  not  fail  of  being  attended 
with  serious  consequences,  affecting  the  situation  of  the  Christians. 
whose  religion,  moreover,  was  an  unlawful  one,  throughout  all  the 
provinces."  !  In  reference  to  Domitian's  reign,  he  remarks  :  "The 
charge  of  embracing  Christianity  would,  in  this  reign,  be  the  most 
common  one  after  that  of  high  treason  (crimen  majestatis).  In 
consequence  of  such  accusations  many  were  condemned  to  death, 
or  to  the  confiscation  of  their  property  and  banishment  to  an 
island."3  The  declaration  made  to  John,  "  Thou  must  prophesy 
again  before  many  peoples,  and  nations,  and  tongues,  and  kings  " 
(chap,  x,  n),  is  more  suitable  to  John  in  the  time  of  Nero  than  at 
the  close  of  the  reign  of  Domitian,  when  John  was  very  old,  and  had 
but  two  or  three  years  to  live. 

44  Rise,  and  measure  the  temple  of  God,  and  the  altar,  and  them  that 
written  before  worsnip  therein.  But  the  court  which  is  without  the 
the  destruction  temple,  leave  out,  and  measure  it  not;  for  it  is  given 
of  Jerusalem.  untQ  the  Qentiles  .  and  the  holy  city  shall  they  tread 

under  foot  forty  and  two  months  "  (chap,  xi,  i,  2).  It  seems  clear 
from  this  passage  that  the  Jewish  Temple  was  still  standing  when 
the  book  was  written  ;  but  the  Temple  perished  when  Jerusalem  was 
taken  by  Titus,  A.  D.  70.  With  this  passage  compare  Luke  xxi,  24: 
"  And  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the 
times  of  the  Gentiles  shall  be  fulfilled." 

In  the  description  of  the  great  whore  who  had  corrupted  the  earth, 
sitting  upon  a  beast  with  seven  heads,  the  angel  declares  :  "  The 
seven  heads  are  seven  mountains  [the  seven  hills  on  which  Rome 
stood],  on  which  the  woman  sitteth.  And  there  are  seven  kings: 
five  are  fallen,  and  one  is,  and  the  other  is  not  yet  come  :  and  when 
he  cometh,  he  must  continue  a  short  space.  And  the  beast  that 
was,  and  is  not,  even  he  is  the  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven,  and  goeth  into 
perdition"  (chap,  xvii,  9-11)-  With  the  data  here  furnished,  AVC 
are  able  to  determine  approximately  the  time  of  the  composition  of 
the  book.  Five  kings  of  Rome  are  fallen  ;  these  would  be  Julius 
Caesar,  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caius  Caligula,  and  Claudius.  "  One 
is,"  that  is  Nero  ;  "  the  other  has  not  yet  come  ;  and  when  he  cometh, 
1  Church  History,  vol.  i,  95.  *  Ibid.,  p.  96. 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  755 

he  must  continue  a  short  space ;"  that  is  Galba,  who  reigned  but 
seven  months.  "  And  the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  even  he  is  the 
eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven,  and  goeth  into  perdition."  This  seems 
to  refer  to  Nero,  who  was  expected  to  reappear  upon  the  stage  of 
the  Roman  world.  Tacitus  remarks:  "About  the  same  time 
(A.  D.  70)  Achaia  and  Asia  were  troubled  by  a  false  alarm,  as  if 
Nero  [who  had  been  dead  about  two  years]  was  about  to  make  his 
appearance.  Various  were  the  reports  concerning  his  death,  and 
for  this  reason  many  pretended  that  he  was  alive,  and  not  a  few 
really  believed  it."  '  "  Let  him  that  hath  understanding  count  the 
number  of  the  beast ;  for  it  is  the  number  of  a  man ;  and  his  num 
ber  is  six  hundred  and  threescore  and  six"  (chap,  xiii,  18).  Ir- 
enaeus8  suggests  names,  the  letters  of  which  will  make  666,  among 
which  he  gives  AATEINOS  (LATINOS),  which  is  favoured  by 
Bleek.3  But  it  is  stated  that  the  number  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast 
is  the  number  of  a  man,  and  therefore  it  is  better  to  suppose,  with 
Fritzsche,  Benary,  Hitzig,  Reuss,  Stuart,  and  Mangold,  that  Nero  is 
intended,  whose  name  in  Hebrew,  jnj  "iDp,  KESAR  NERON,  makes 
666  ;  thus  :  p=ioo  ;  D=6o ;  "1=200  ;  2=50  ;  1=200  ;  1=6  ;  3=50.  This 
would  add  something  to  the  proof  that  the  book  was  written  in  Nero's 
reign. 

Here  the  question  arises,  What  light  does  the  linguistic  character 
of  the  work  throw  upon  the  time  of  its  composition  ?  The  style  aa 
The  Greek  of  John's  Gospel  is  more  regular  and  freer  ^for  wm£! 
from  Hebraisms  than  is  that  of  the  Apocalypse.  To  the  sition. 
hypothesis,  which  we  hold,  that  both  books  proceeded  from  the 
same  author,  this  difference  of  style  offers  no  objection,  but  is  easily 
explained,  if  we  suppose  the  Apocalypse  to  have  been  composed 
in  Nero's  reign.  This  being  the  earlier  work,  gives  us  a  style  and 
language  in  which  the  Hebrew  idiom  4  still  cleaves  to  the  author  ; 
while  the  Gospel,  written  probably  fifteen  or  twenty  years  later, 
exhibits  a  higher  degree  of  Grecian  culture,  the  result  of  a  long 
abode  in  Ephesus.  But  on  the  hypothesis  that  both  books  were 
written  by  the  same  author  about  the  same  time,  the  difference  of 
language  is  not  so  easily  explained.  The  composition  of  the  book 
is  placed  in  the  time  of  Galba  (A.  D.  68-69)  by  Liicke,5  De  Wette,' 

1  Sub  idem  tempus  Achaia  atque  Asia  falso  exterritae,  velut  Nero  adventaret ;  vario 
super  exitu  cjus  rumore,  eoque  pluribus  vivere  eum  fingentibus  credentibusque.  .Hist 
lib.  ii,  cap.  8. 

•He  gives  EYAN9A2,  AATEINOS,  and  TEITAN.     Lib.  v,  cap.  xxx,  sec.  3. 

'Einleitung,  p.  715. 

4  It  is  probable  that  John  left  Palestine  some  time  before  the  Jewish  war,  perhaps 
about  A.  D.  65-67.  *  Die  Offenbarung  des  Johannes,  p.  840.  *  Einleitung,  p.  416* 


7a8  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

Neander,1  Ewald,  and  Gieseler;*  in  the  time  of  Nero  by  Professor 
Stuart  ;8  in  A.  D.  68-70  by  Bleek  ;  *  at  the  end  of  68  or  beginning  of 
69  by  Hilgenfeld.6  Hengstenberg  6  and  Ebrard  T  place  it  near  the 
end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian  (95-96).  But  as  the  book  was  written 
in  the  midst  of  the  persecution  of  the  Church,  it  is  best  to  place  to 
composition  not  later  than  the  first  part  of  A.  D.  63,  as  Nero  died  in 
the  June  of  that  year.  Although  I  have  been  led  to  this  conclusion* 
I  am  fully  aware  of  the  force  of  the  arguments  for  the  Domitian  date, 
and  confess  that  the  evidence  for  either  view  is  far  from  conclusive, 

THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE. 

"The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  unto  him,  to 
show  unto  his  servants  things  which  must  shortly  come  to  pass; 
and  he  sent  and  signified  it  by  his  angel  unto  his  servant  John: 
who  bare  record  of  the  word  of  God,  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
Christ,  whatever  he  saw  "  (chap,  i,  i,  2).  Such  is  the  statement  of 
the  author  respecting  himself.  He  further  states :  "  I  John,  who 
also  am  your  brother,  and  companion  in  tribulation,  and  in  the 
kingdom  and  patience  in  Jesus,  was  in  the  isle  that  is  called  Pat- 
mos,  for  the  word  of  God  and  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus," 8  *.  T.  A.  (ch. 
i,  9).  The  last  part  of  this  verse  refers  to  the  testimony  the  author 
bore  to  the  truth  of  Christianity  as  an  eyewitness  of  the  sufferings 
and  glory  of  Christ.  In  the  words,  "  his  servant  John  :  who  bore  tes 
timony  to  the  word  of  God,"  etc.,  we  think  there  is  a  designation 
of  the  Apostle  John.  And  who  but  an  apostle  would  take  it  upon 
himself  to  address  the  Churches  in  Asia  in  such  an  authoritative 
*one,  to  chasten  and  to  rebuke  them  ?  Could  John  the  presbyter,  to 
whom  some  have  ascribed  the  book,  be  expected  during  the  lifetime 
of  the  Apostle  John  to  do  this  ? 9  But  little,  indeed,  is  known  of  this 
John,  and  nothing  to  indicate  such  a  position  as  the  author  of  this 
book  held,  to  whom  it  is  said,  "  Thou  must  prophesy  again  before 
many  people,  and  nations,  and  tongues,  and  kings  "  (chap,  x,  n). 

It  might  be  supposed  that  John  would  not  have  inserted  his  name 
in  the  book,  as  he  has  not  done  it  in  his  Gospel,  nor  in  his  Epistles. 
Vet  he  clearly  indicates  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  Gospel  by  stat 
ing,  "  And  he  that  saw  it  bare  record,  and  his  record  is  true,"  etc., 

Planting  and  Training,  pp.  397,  398.  *  Church  History,  vol.  i,  p.  97. 

"Commentary  on  Apocalypse,  vol.  i,  p.  274.         4Einleitung,  p.  723. 
"Einleitung,  p.  447.  'Die  Offenbarung Johannes, p.  30. 

7  Wissenschaft.  Kritik.  der  Evang.  Geschichte,  p.  1241. 

*  We  have  followed  the  critical  Texts  of  Tischcndorf  and  Tregelles. 

8  If  the  book  had  been  written  before  the  arrival  of  the  Apostle  John  in  Ephesus 
Ihis  objection  to  its  having  been  composed  by  the  presbyter  would  be  invalid. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  757 

(chap,  xix,  35).  Prophets  and  the  writers  of  Epistles  insert  theii 
names  in  their  works.  In  this  statement,  however,  we  must  except 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Epistles  of  John,  which  are 
anonymous.  On  the  other  hand,  the  writers  of  sacred  history  omit 
their  names  in  their  works.  We  should,  therefore,  look  for  the 
name  of  the  author  in  the  Apocalypse,  because  it  is  both  epistolary 
and  prophetic. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  written 
about  A.  D.  150,  supports  his  millenarian  views  by  unanimous 
quoting  the  Apocalypse  :  *'  Since  also  among  us  a  certain  {j^™^68*.!! 
man  by  the  name  of  John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  centuries. 
in  the  revelation  made  to  him,  prophesied  that  those  who  believe  in 
our  Christ  will  spend  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem."1  Irenseus, 
bishop  of  Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202),  referring  to  the  kings  of  the  Ro 
man  empire,  says  :  "  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord  in  the  Apocalypse 
showed,"  etc.8  Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  the  Apocalypse  with 
the  remark,  "As  John  says  in  the  Apocalypse."1  Tertullian  ot 
Carthage,  of  nearly  the  same  age  (about  A.  D.  200),  remarks:  "The 
Apostle  John  in  the  Apocalypse  describes  a  sword  proceeding  from 
the  mouth  of  God."  4 

Eusebius  states  that  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch  (A.  D.  169- 
180),  wrote  a  work  "with  the  title  Concerning  the  Heresy  of  Her- 
mogenes,  in  which  he  made  use  of  testimonies  from  the  Apocalypse 
of  John."8  He  also  says  that  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis  (about  A.  D. 
169),  wrote  a  work  On  the  Devil  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John.8 

Apollonius  (about  A.  D.  190),  in  a  work  against  the  Montanists, 
"  makes  use  of  testimonies  from  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  and  relates 
that  a  dead  man  in  Ephesus  had  been  raised  to  life  through  the 
divine  power  by  this  same  John."7  He  must  have  ascribed  the  book 
to  the  Apostle  John,  as  we  can  hardly  suppose  he  would  have  attrib 
uted  to  any  other  the  power  to  raise  the  dead. 

In  the  account  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Christian  martyrs  of  Lyons 
and  Vienna,  written  by  Christians  of  those  cities  to  the  Christians 
of  Asia  and  Phrygia  (about  A.  D.  177),  we  have  the  following  ref 
erences  to  the  Apocalypse  :  "  That  the  Scripture  may  be  fulfilled, 


1  Kal  tireidr)  KOI  Trap'  ijplv  avrip  rtf  9  bvopa  'ludwrjc,  elf  T&V  a-xooTokuv  row  XpmroO, 
*v  anonaXv^et.  yEvofjifvij  avrfi  £/A*a  f  TIJ  TTOITJOEIV  h  'lepovaaMift  rovf  r£  rif^Tepu  Xpto  f$ 
xiorevaavTcif  rcpoe^rcvae.  —  Sec.  8  1. 

'Lib.  v,  cap.  xxvi,  I.  'Strom.,  vi,  cap.  xiii. 

*  Adversus  Marc.,  iii,  cap.  xiv.  *  Hist.  Eccles.,  iv,  cap.  xxiv. 

'  Ibid.,  iv,  cap.  xxvi.  *  In  Eusebius,  v,  cap.  xviii 


758  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

He  that  is  unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still1  (Apoc.  xxii,  n);  "follow 
ing  the  Lamb  wherever  he  goes  "  (chap,  xiv,  4). 

Cyprian  of  Carthage  (about  A.  D.  250)  in  various  places  quotes 
the  Apocalypse.8  Origen  (about  A.  D.  230)  exclaims  :  "  What  shall 
I  say  concerning  John,  who  leaned  upon  the  breast  of  Jesus,  and 
who  left  one  Gospel,  acknowledging  that  he  was  able  to  write  so 
many  that  not  even  the  world  could  contain  them?  HealsowioU 
the  Apocalypse"  etc.* 

Hippolytus  (about  A.  D.  240),  according  to  Jerome,  wrote  a  com 
mentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  and  in  his  Refutation  of  all  Heresies 
attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  John.4  On  his  Cathedra,  discovered  in 
1551  (belonging  probably  to  the  sixth  century),  is  inscribed  as  one 
of  his  works  :  ATroAoyfo  v?rep  TOV  Kara  'lowzvvT/v  kvayyeXiov  nai  ano- 
jcaA,vi/>e6>£,  A  Defence  of  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  Apocalypse?  In 
the  Canon  of  Muratori  (about  A.  D.  160)  it  is  stated  :  "  We  receive 
the  Apocalypse  ol  John." 

The  Apocalypse,  however,  was  not  received  into  the  Peshito- 
Not  in  the  Syriac  version  of  the  second  century,  though  Hug  has 
Peshito-syriac  attempted  to  show  *  that  this  version  originally  contained 
the  Apocalypse,  and  that  in  the  fourth  century  it  was 
gradually  left  out  of  the  books  composing  it.  He  refers  to  the  fact 
that  the  Syrian  writer,  Ephraem  (about  A.  D.  350),  quotes  the  Apoca 
lypse,  which  he  contends  Ephraem  could  not  have  done  unless  the 
book  had  been  translated  into  Syriac,  as  he  did  not  understand 
Greek.7  But  inasmuch  as  Ephraem  took  with  him  in  his  travels  a 
Greek  interpreter,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  could  not  trans 
late  a  few  passages  in  the  Apocalypse,  or  in  any  other  book  of  the 
New  Testament.  How  many  men  there  are  who  can  read  foreign 
languages,  but  can  not  speak  them  with  any  degree  of  fluency  !  But 
it  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  if  the  Apocalypse  had  originally  formed 


*In  Eusebius,  v,  cap.  i. 

"Lib.  de  Opere  et  Eleemos.,  xiv  ;  Lib.  de  Bono  Patientiae,  xxi. 

*T/  cJeZ  irepl  TOV  avcnreoovToc  Xeyctv  em  TO  or^tfof  TOV  'lijoov,  'ludvvov.  .  .  .  'Eypaifft 
dfc  KOI  TTJV  'ATroKciAv^uv.  .  .  . — In  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi,  25. 

*  Page  392.  6  See  Gieseler,  Church  History,  vol.  i,  pp.  225,  226- 

•Einleitung,  Vierte  Auf.  Erst.  Theil.,  pp.  306-308. 

rTheodoret  states  that  Ephraem  had  not  enjoyed  a  Greek  education  (Hist.  Eccl, 
lib.  iv,  cap.  xxvi),  and  similar  is  the  statement  of  Sozomen  (Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii, 
cap.  xvi).  On  the  other  hand,  Photius  asserts  that  Ephraem  was  not  meanly  edu 
cated  in  the  Greek  language  (naidevdeif  <5e  KOI  TT/V  "EAAj/va  yTitiaaav  OVK  aycvvuif). 
Codex  ccxxviii.  Assemani  affirms  that  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Amphilochius  in  his  life 
of  Basil,  Metaphrastes  in  his  life  of  Ephraem,  and  all  the  Syrians,  show  that  Ephraera 
was  acquainted  with  Greek,  and  that  his  knowledge  of  this  tongue  is  evident  from 
his  writings.  Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  torn,  i,  p.  55  ;  from  the  Peabody  Library,  Bait 


OF    THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  759 

a  part  of  the  Peshito  version,  it  would  have  been  left  out  at  a  subse 
quent  time.  It,  indeed,  seems  strange  that  the  Apocalypse,  which 
we  have  seen  was  so  well  attested  in  the  second  century,  formed  no 
part  of  this  version  which  belongs  to  the  centun.  Nor  is  it  easy  to 
explain  the  omission.  It  is,  however,  possible,  that  the  authors  of 
the  version  were  strong  opponents  of  the  Millenarians,  who  derived 
their  chief  support  from  the  Apocalypse,  and  that  they  feared  the 
translation  of  that  book  would  disseminate  the  Millenarian  doctrine 
among  the  Syrian  Churches.1  It  would  appear  from  Eusebius  that 
Caius,  presbyter  of  Rome  (about  A.  D.  200),  attributed  the  Apoca 
lypse  to  Cerinthus  :  "  But  Cerinthus,"  says  Caius,  "  who  by  means  of 
Revelations,  as  having  been  written  by  a  great  Apostle  [John  ?],  by 
feigning  wonderful  things  as  having  been  shown  him  by  angels,  in 
troduces  them  to  us,  affirming  that  after  the  resurrection  the  king 
dom  of  Christ  will  be  upon  the  earth,"  etc.2 

The  Alogians  (about  A.  D.  180)  attributed  both  the  Gospel  of 
John  and  the  Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus,  who  flourished  in  the  last 
part  of  the  first  century.3  From  the  foregoing  testimonies  it  is  seen, 
that  until  the  middle  of  the  third  century  the  testimony  to  the 
Apocalypse  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John  is  almost  unanimous. 
This  is  of  the  highest  importance;  and  the  testimony  of  Justin  and  Ire- 
naeus  is  especially  valuable,  as  the  Dialogue  of  the  former,  in  which 
the  Apocalypse  is  ascribed  to  the  Apostle  John,  was  held  in  Ephe- 
sus  about  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  John  ;  and  Irenseus  was  born 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  lived  there  about  A.  D.  150,*  and  was  acquainted 
with  Polycarp.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Andreas  in  the  last 
part  of  the  fifth  century,  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  also  received 
the  Apocalypse. 

The  first  important  opponent  of  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  book 
was  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  248-265).  Dlonyslus  flrst 

In  his  work   on   the   Promises  he   gives  the  unfavour-  doubter  of  ltd 

,  .  P  r  i  •  j  •         ^        genuineness, 

able  views  of  some  of  his  predecessors  concerning  the 

Apocalypse,  and  then  states  his  own  opinions.  He  affirms  that  the 
book  is  covered  with  such  a  thick  veil  that  he  cannot  penetrate  its 
meaning,  yet  confesses  that  it  may  have  a  sense  too  deep  for 

1  In  illustration  of  this,  we  may  cite  what  Philostorgius  (about  A.  D.  425)  says  of 
IJlfilas,  bishop  of  the  Goths:  "  He  translated  into  their  language  all  the  Scriptures, 
except,  indeed,  the  Kings  [two  Books  of  Samuel  and  two  of  Kings],  since  they  con 
tain  a  history  of  wars,  and  the  (Gothic)  nation  is  fond  of  war,  and  needs  rather  a 
bridle  upon  their  propensity  to  war  than  a  spur  to  it." — Eccles.  Hist.,  lib.  ii,  5. 

aHist.  Eccles.,  iii,  28. 

'Epiphanius,  after  speaking  both  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse,  says  :  "  They 
(the  Alogians)  affirm  that  these  do  not  belong  to  John,  but  to  Cerinthus." —  Haer.,  li,  3 

*  At  a  later  period  he  was  bishop  of  Lyons. 


760  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE   STUDY 

him.  He  grants  that  the  book  was  written  by  a  John,  but  not  the 
apostle  of  that  name,  since  the  style  of  the  Apocalypse  differs  from 
that  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  of  that  apostle.  He  thinks  the 
book  was  written  by  the  presbyter  John  of  Ephesus.  The  acute 
objections  of  this  bishop  have  furnished  the  staple  for  the  subse 
quent  attacks  on  the  Apocalypse. 

The  opposition  of  Dionysius  to  the  Apocalypse  evidently,  in  part 
causes  of  the  at  ^east>  Srew  out  °f  his  relations  to  the  Chiliasts.  A 
opposition  of  sensual  Chiliasm  was  prevailing  in  the  province  of  Ar- 
senoe,  the  bishop  of  which  was  Nepos.  So  far  did  the 
Chiliasts  carry  their  fanatical  views,  that  whole  Churches  separated 
themselves  from  communion  with  the  mother  Church  at  Alexandria. 
Dionysius  refuted  them.  It  would  be  very  natural  for  him  to  de 
grade,  as  much  as  possible,  the  book  which  was  the  chief  support  of 
the  sect  that  had  given  him  so  much  trouble. 

Eusebius,  of  Caesarea  Palestinae,  the  Church  historian,  who  flour- 

.  ished  in  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  century,  doubts  the 
The  opinions  of 

others  of  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apocalypse.  After  these  (canon 
ical  Scriptures),"  says  he,  "  is  to  be  placed,  if  thought  fit, 
the  Apocalypse  of  John,  concerning  which,  at  the  proper  time,  we 
will  explain  the  (various)  opinions."  Again,  "besides  these,  as  I 
said,  if  it  is  thought  fit,  (let)  the  Apocalypse  of  John  (be  added), 
which  some,  as  I  said,  reject,  but  others  place  among  the  acknowl 
edged  Scriptures."  l  It  appears  from  the  foregoing  quotations  that 
the  criticism  of  Dionysius  perplexed  him. 

About  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  the  Apocalypse  is  quoted 
as  an  authority  by  Athanasius  ;a  it  is  ascribed  to  John  the  evangelist 
by  Gregory 8  of  Nyssa,  by  Ambrose 4  of  Milan,  by  Didymus  6  of  Alex- 
dria,  by  Epiphanius 6  of  Cyprus,  and  by  Basil  the  Great 7  of  Cappa- 
docia,  and  was  contained  in  the  canon  of  Rufinus 8  of  Aquileia. 


'Hist.  Eccles.,  iii,  cap.  xxv.  "Oratio  i,  Contra  Arianos,  n. 

8  In  quoting  Apoc.  iii,  15,  he  says,  "  I  heard  the  Evangelist  John  in  hidden  things, 
saying,"  etc.,  in  Suam  Ordinationem.  Also  in  Com.  in  Psalm,  he  quotes  the  Apoc 
alypse  as  John's,  cap.  x. 

4  He  observes,  "John  the  evangelist  says  there  was  a  red  horse  upon  which  the 
Loid  was  sitting." — De  Trinitate,  cap.  xxvii. 

6  He  remarks,  "John  the  theologian  said  in  the  Gospel,  ...  but  in  the  Apoca'ypse, 
•  He  who  is,  and  who  was,'  "  etc. — De  Trinitate,  lib.  i,  cap.  xv. 

6  Hseresis  li,  cap.  xxxiv.  It  is  omitted  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture  of  the  Couccil 
of  Laodicea  (about  A.  D.  363). 

T  He  quotes,  as  belonging  to  the  Evangelist,  passages  from  John's  Gospel,  and 
adds,  "And  in  the  Apocalypse,  'He  who  was,  and  who  is,'"  etc.,  after  which  lie 
gives  passages  as  Paul's,  from  which  it  is  clear  that  he  ascribes  it  to  the  Evangelist. 
Adversus  Eunomium,  lib.  iv,  sec.  I.  •Comment,  in  Symb.  Apostolic.,  37. 


OF   THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  761 

These  six  writers  flourished  in  the  last  half  of  the  fourth  century. 
Abut  the  same  time  it  is  quoted  as  an  authority  by  Macarius.1 
The  distinguished  biblical  scholar,  Jerome,  who  flourished  in  the 
last  part  of  the  fourth  century  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth, 
ascribes  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle  John.3  About  the  same  time 
it  was  received  as  canonical  by  Augustine.*  It  is  attributed  to  the 
Apostle  John  by  Cyril4  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  412-444).  It  was  con 
tained  in  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  ^Ethiopic,  and  Armenian  versions, 
and  in  all  probability  in  the  Gothic.*  Although  not  found  in  the 
Peshito-Syriac  version,  it  is  quoted  as  canonical  Scripture  by 
Ephraem  *  the  Syrian  (f  378).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  omitted  in 
the  catalogue  of  Cyril7  of  Jerusalem  (about  A.  D.  350).  Gregory 
Nazianzen  (in  the  last  half  of  the  fourth  century)  omits  the  Apoca 
lypse  in  his  canon  of  Scripture,  and  remarks  after  naming  the  seven 
Catholic  Epistles :  "  You  have  them  all.  If  there  is  any  (book) 
besides  these,  it  is  not  genuine." '  In  another  place,  however,  he 
says:  "Some  receive  the  Apocalypse  of  John  as  genuine,  but  the 
most  affirm  it  to  be  spurious."1 

Chrysostom,  archbishop   of    Constantinople   (about  A.   D.   400), 
omits  the  Apocalypse  in  his  canon  of  Scripture.10     He  omitted      by 
had  previously  been  presbyter  at  Antioch,  and  his  canon  Chrysostom. 
of  Scripture  is  accordingly  that  of  the  Syrian  Church,  which  received 
only  three  Catholic  Epistles,  and  rejected  the  Apocalypse. 

The  Apocalypse,  it  appears,  was  rejected  by  Theodoret,  bishop 
of  Cyrrhus,  in  Syria  (about  A.  D.  420-457),  as  we  have  found  no 
reference  to  the  book  in  his  voluminous  writings.11  In  his  canon  he 

1  Homil   xxx. 

*  De  Vins  Illus.     Joannes.  *  De  Doctrina  Christ.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  viii. 

4  "  The  wise  John  testifies  to  the  Son  that  he  was  without  beginning  in  time  :  '  In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word  ;'  saying,  after  these  things,  '  lie  who  was,  and  who 
is,'"  etc.  (Apoc.  i,  8).  Uepl  'Ayrnf  KOL  'O/zoov  aiov  Tpu'idof.  Dialog,  ii. 

*  Of  this  version  no  part  of  the  Apocalypse  is  preserved. 

8  On  Ephraem,  Assemani  remarks :  "  In  this  language  (the  Syriac)  the  holy  doc 
tor  quotes  the  Apocalypse  of  John  as  a  part  of  canonical  Scripture"  (In  hoc  ser- 
mone  citat  s.  doctor  Apocalypsim  Joannis  tanquam  canonicam  Scripturae  partem). 
— Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  torn,  i,  p.  141,  from  the  Peabody  Library,  Baltimore. 

7  Catechesis,  iv,  De  Decem  Dogmat.,  xxxvi. 

"Carminum,  lib.  i,  261,  262.  "Ibid.,  lib.  ii,  1104,  1105. 

10  Synopsis  Scrip.  Sac.  In  the  Lexicon  of  Suidas  (in  its  present  form  not  earlier 
than  al.uut  A.  D.  1100)  it  is  stated  at  the  end  of  a  short  article  on  the  Apostle  John  : 
•'  Chrysostom  receives  his  three  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse."  But  this  statement, 
contradicting  Chrysostom  himself,  is  of  no  value,  and  is  out  of  place.  It  appears  to 
b  ave  been  inserted  to  claim  his  testimony  to  the  Second  and  Third  John,  and  the 
Apocalypse  rejected  by  him. 

J1  In  the  index  to  his  works  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  volume  (Migne's  edition)  it  is 
stated,  "  Nowhere  does  Theodoret  make  use  of  the  Apocalypse  on  the  Song  of  Sol 


762  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

seems  to  have  followed  the  Syrian  Church.  Nicephorus,  patriaich 
of  Constantinople  (A.  D.  806-815),  places  the  Apocalypse  among  the 
disputed  writings.1 

In  concluding  the  ancient  testimonies  concerning  the  book,  we 

Mass    of    an-  must   la^  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the   great  mass  of 

ciont  testimo-    them  is  decidedly  favourable  to  the  apostolic  origin,  and 

that   the  chief  opposition   to  it  sprang  from  dogmatic 

grounds. 

"  At  the  period  of  the  Reformation,"  says  De  Wette,  "  doubts  re- 
opinions  held  sPecting  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apocalypse  gen- 
by  modem  crit-  erally  again  awoke  with  criticism,  and  Erasmus,  Carl- 
ori-  stadt,  Luther,  and  Zwingle  expressed  themselves  either 


gin  of  Apoca-  by  hints  or  decidedly  against  it."  a  De  Wette  denies 
that  the  Apocalypse  is  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John,  on 
the  ground  that  in  its  style  and  contents  it  differs  greatly  from  the 
Gospel  and  Epistles  of  that  apostle.  He  affirms  that  nothing  need 
prevent  our  acceding  to  the  ancient3  opinion  that  another  John, 
the  so-called  presbyter,  is  the  author,  provided  we  place  the  com 
position  of  the  writing  and  his  authority  in  the  Churches  of  Asia 
Minor,  presupposed  according  to  chapters  ii,  iii,  before  the  abode 
of  the  Apostle  John  in  that  country.* 

Quite  similar  are  the  objections  of  Liicke  to  the  apostolical  origin 
John  the  pres-  of  the  book  :  "  The  difference  of  language  in  the  Apoca- 
iT'the^auSor  typse  and  in  the  remaining  writings  of  John  in  the  New 
byLucke.  Testament  is  so  great,  of  such  an  individual  and  mental 
character  —  in  short,  a  difference  of  individual  genius  in  the  similai 
original  use  of  the  New  Testament  Greek  —  that  even  if  we  should 
grant  that  John's  circle  of  words  is  not  foreign  to  the  author  of  the 
Apocalypse,  nevertheless,  the  identity  of  its  author  with  that  of  the 
Gospel  and  Epistles,  especially  of  the  First  Epistle,  can  in  no  way 
be  maintained,  but  the  contrary  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable."1 
Again,."  If  all  critical  experience  and  rules  in  such  literary  questions 
do  not  deceive  us,  then  it  is  as  firmly  established  that  the  evangel 
ist  and  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  are  two  different  Johns,  as  it 
is  in  the  very  similar  problem  of  the  Epistle  of  the  Hebrews,  that 
the  Apostle  Paul  did  not  write  it." 

Bleek  remarks  :  "The  Apocalypse,  indeed,  exhibits  many  resem 
blances  to  the  other  writings  of  John,  as  well  in  the  manner  of  pres- 

omon,  where,  in  accordance  with  his  hypothesis,  he  could  have  done  so  to  a  vei-y 
great  extent,  as  in  Psalm  xlv  ;  nor  where  the  place  seemed  to  require  it,  as  i,  1217, 
Concerning  Heaven  and  the  Church" 

'Quae  Scrip.  Canon.  "Einleit.,  p.  430. 

8  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and  Eusebius  alone  favoured  this  view,  as  it  appears 
a  Einleitung,  pp.  420-423.  5  Die  Offenbarung  des  Johannes,  p.  680. 


OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  763 

entation  as  in  style  and  use  of  language  ;  yet  this  is  shown  more  or  less 
in  single  points  only,  while  on  the  other  hand,  in  its  entire  character 
there  is  manifested  a  great  difference,  and  such  as  can  scarcely  be 
explained  on  the  supposition  of  identity  of  authorship."1  He  re 
gards  John  the  presbyter  as  most  probably  its  author.3 

Neander  expresses  himself  as  follows:  "  We  cannot  acknowledge 
the  Apocalypse  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  "  (John),  and  after  dis- 
cussing  the  question,  whether  it  was  not  written  by  John  the  pres 
byter,  of  Ephesus,  he  says :  "  It  is,  then,  more  probable  that  the 
author,  a  diyciple  of  John,  by  some  circumstance  unknown  to  us, 
having  devoted  himself  to  write  on  a  subject,  which  he  had  received 
mediately  or  immediately  from  the  Apostle,  thought  himself  justi 
fied  [!]  in  introducing  John  as  the  speaker."  *  Ewald  also  favours  the 
view  that  John  the  presbyter  wrote  the  book. 

On  the  other  hand,  Gieseler,  who  is  inferior  to  none  of  these  men 
in  learning  and  critical  ability,  and  who  is  also  a  man  Gle8elerfavoura 
of  great  candour,  remarks :  "  I  cannot,  however,  bring  the  apostolic 
myself  to  refuse  to  the  Apostle  John  the  authorship  of  orlKln* 
this  book.  The  author  designates  himself  as  the  Apostle ;  the  oldest 
witnesses  declare  him  to  be  so.  Had  the  book  been  forged  in  his 
name  thirty  years  before  his  death,  he  would  certainly  have  contra 
dicted  it,  and  this  contradiction  would  have  reached  us  through 
Irenseus  from  the  school  of  John's  disciples.  On  the  contrary,  the 
later  contradictions  of  the  apostolic  origin  proceed  from  doctrinal 
prepossessions  alone.  The  internal  difference  in  language  and  mode 
of  thought  between  the  Apocalypse  which  John  (whose  education 
was  essentially  Hebrew,  and  his  Christianity  Jewish-Christian  of  the 
Palestinian  character)  wrote,  and  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  which 
he  had  composed  after  an  abode  of  from  twenty  to  thirty  years 
among  the  Greeks,  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  different  re 
lations  in  which  the  writer  was  placed,  so  that  the  opposite  would 
excite  suspicion.  There  is  much  at  the  same  time  that  is  cognate, 
proving  continuousness  of  culture  in  the  same  author."4 

That  the  apostolic  John  is  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  has  been 
held  by  Eichhorn,  Hug,  Bertholdt,  Guericke,  Stuart,  Hengstenberg, 
Auberlen,  Ebrard,  Bohmer,  Lange,  Hase,  Luthardt,  and  others,  and 
we  confess  that  we  see  no  good  reason  for  rejecting  this  view.  We  lay 
no  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the  Tubingen  &  school  acknowledges  the 

'Einlcitung,  p.  724.  *  Ibid.,  p.  727. 

'History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i,  396,  397. 
4  Church  History,  American  Edition,  p.  97. 

'  Baur,  Kirchengeschichte  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  pp.  146-148,  Drittc  Aus» 
gabe.     Hiigenfeld,  Einleitung,  pp  407-452. 


7G4  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   STUDY 

apostolic  origin  of  the  Apocalypse,  since  they  do  this  that  they  may 
the  more  readily  attack  the  genuineness  of  John's  Gospel  from  its 
difference  of  style. 

The  only  plausible  ground  on  which  the  apostolic  origin  of  the 
NO  sufficient  Apocalypse  can  be  denied  is  its  difference  in  style  and 
reason  for  de-  language  from  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  of  John.  But 
toiicgoriffhi0of  this  is  very  unsafe  ground,  especially  as  the  Apocalypse 
the  Apocalypse.  was  written  probably  fifteen  or  twenty  years  earlier 
than  these  other  works,  and  the  subject  is  entirely  different.  Who 
would  expect  to  find  the  poems  of  a  distinguished  author  similar  to 
his  prose  writings  ?  The  Apocalypse  is  a  prophetic  book.  Its  vis 
ions  are  of  the  grandest,  and  often  of  the  most  terrible,  character. 
It  is  impossible  for  a  writer,  in  such  an  ecstatic  state,  not  to  speak 
and  write  in  a  lofty  and  symbolic  style.  The  human  spirit  labours  to 
give  utterance  to  its  magnificent  conceptions;  language  is  taxed  to 
its  utmost,  and  the  mind,  excited  to  the  highest  degree  of  tension, 
lays  hold  upon  whatever  will  express  its  deep  emotions.  And  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  John  wrote  in  the  very  midst  of  his 
awful  visions.  Had  years  elapsed  before  he  wrote  them  down,  the 
style  and  language  would  probably  have  been  different.  How  un 
like,  too,  is  the  language  of  Christ  when  predicting  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  (Matt,  xxiv  ;  Mark  xiii ;  Luke  xxi)  and  that  which  he 
generally  employs ! 

Nor  can  it  be  urged  with  any  force  against  the  apostolic  origin  of 
the  Apocalypse,  that  its  tone  is  not  that  which  we  should  expect  from 
the  loving  John,  who  dwells  in  the  Gospel  so  much  upon  the  love  of 
Christ,  and  so  rarely  upon  Christ's  sterner  attributes.  The  occasion 
of  his  writing  was  different.  In  the  Gospel  he  discusses  the  pro 
found  internal  relations  existing  between  Christ  and  his  Father,  and 
between  Christ  and  his  followers.  The  discourses  of  our  Lord  that 
bear  upon  the  subject  he  gives  in  their  fulness.  These  are  the  rays 
of  divine  truth  which  he  perfectly  reflected,  while  the  other  evangel 
ists  reflected  other  rays. 

When  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  it  was  a  time  of  bitter  persecu 
tion.  The  power  of  the  Roman  empire  was  arrayed  against  Chris 
tianity;  the  sword  was  drawn  against  the  Church.  To  meet  this 
terrible  enemy,  Christ  is  represented  as  a  mighty  conqueror,  before 
whom  every  foe  is  prostrated,  and  the  power  of  the  world  brought  to 
naught.  Nor  let  it  be  said  that  this  last  representation  of  Christ  is 
inconsistent  with  his  character  as  drawn  in  the  Gospels,  nor  that 
John  in  his  different  writings  is  inconsistent  with  himself;  for  souls 
the  most  amiable  are  frequently  the  most  severe  when  once  aroused. 
The  divine  goodness  itself,  when  it  has  been  repeatedly  spurned, 


OF   THE   HOLY   SCRIPT  URES.  765 

becomes  implacable  and  our  Saviour,  in  the  very  midst  of  did- 
courses  full  of  benevolence  and  goodness,  declares  :  "  Upon  whom 
soever  this  stone  [himself]  shall  fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder  " 
(Matt,  xxi,  44;  Luke  xx,  18).  Is  there  any  thing  in  the  description 
which  John  gives  in  the  Apocalypse  at  variance  with  what  he  gives 
in  his  Gospel  ?  In  the  latter  it  is  said  :  "  The  hour  is  coming,  in  the 
which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
foith*  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they 
that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation"  (chap,  v, 
28,  29). 

But  if  the  addresses  to  the  seven  Churches  are  the  real  words  of 
Christ,  if  the  visions  are  not  the  offspring  of  John's  imagination, 
then  we  should  expect  in  the  Apocalypse  a  different  presentation  of 
divine  truth  from  what  John  himself  might  have  given.  Very  dif 
ferent  was  the  case  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel ;  from  the  multitude 
of  Christ's  discourses  and  acts  he  could  select  those  that  best  suited 
his  taste  or  purpose,  and  fill  up  what  had  been  left  incomplete  in 
Christ's  history  by  the  other  Evangelists.  In  the  Apocalypse  he 
delivers  all  the  messages  to  the  Churches ;  he  is  ordered  to  write 
what  he  sees.  Little  room  is  left  for  the  display  of  his  subjectivity. 

But  notwithstanding  the  difference  of  style  between  the  Apoca 
lypse  and  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John,  we  shall  polntg  of  glm_ 
find,  upon  a  close  scrutiny  of  the  former,  a  great  deal  iiarity between 
that  is  decidedly  Johannean,  and  which  may,  after  all,  ofjoiln^S 
render  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  book  highly  probable  pel  and  that  of 
from  internal  evidence.  The  verb  viKav,  to  conquer,  to 
overcome,  occurs  in  the  Apocalypse  sixteen  times  ;  in  the  first  Epistle 
of  John  six  times ;  in  the  Gospel  of  John  once  ;  in  all  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament  but  four  times.  'Apw'ov,  lamb,  occurs  twenty-eight 
times  in  the  Apocalypse ;  it  is  found  once  in  John's  Gospel  and  no 
where  else  ;  but  aftvdc,  lamb,  occurs  twice  in  John's  Gospel,  and  twice 
in  all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  and  one  of  these  is  a  quotation 
from  the  Old  Testament,  which  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  was  reading. 
Maprfpm,  testimony,  occurs  nine  times  in  the  Apocalypse,  fourteen  times 
in  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  seven  times  in  his  Epistles;  in  all  the 
rest  of  the  New  Testament,  seven  times.  Ati/>av,  to  thirst,  is  used  in  a 
spiritual  sense  at  least  twice  in  the  Apocalypse,  three  times  in  John's 
Gospd,  and  once  in  Matthew's  Gospel.  In  a  physical  sense,  nine  or 
ten  times  in  all  the  New  Testament.  In  Apocalypse  xxii,  17  it  is 
said:  "  And  let  him  that  is  athirst  come,  and  take  the  water  of  life 
freely."  With  this  compare  John  vii,  37  :  "  If  any  man  thirst,  let 
him  come  unto  me  and  drink."  There  is  no  other  passage  in  the 
NC\A  Testament  like  these  two.  "Behold.  I  stard  at  the  door,  and 


760  INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    STUDY 

knock  :  If  any  man  hear  my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come 
in  to  him,  and  will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me  "  (Apoc.  iii,  20). 
With  this  compare  John  xiv,  23  :  "  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep 
my  words :  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  untc 
him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  "Unto  him  that  loved  us 
and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood  "  (Apoc.  i,  5).  There 
is  no  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which  so  strikingly  resembles 
this  as  First  John  i,  7  :  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleans- 
eth  us  from  all  sin."  "  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped 
in  blood,  and  his  name  is  called  The  Word  (Logos)  of  God  "  (Apoc. 
The  verbal  pe-  xix,  13).  Christ  is  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament 
cuiiarities.  called  «  The  Word"  (Logos),  except  in  John's  Gospel. 
In  Hebrews  iv,  12,  "  For  the  word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful," 
etc.,  the  reference  is  not  to  the  personal  Word,  Christ,  but  to  divine 
truth  in  its  all-searching  power.  "Behold,  he  cometh  with  clouds; 
and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  also  which  pierced  him " 
(Apoc.  i,  7).  In  this  passage  there  is  a  reference  both  to  Zechariah 
xii,  10,  and  to  John  xix,  34,  37,  where  it  is  stated  that  one  of  the 
soldiers  pierced  the  side  of  Christ,  and  that  the  Scripture  saith : 
"They  shall  look  on  him  whom  they  pierced."  Both  in  Apocalypse 
i,  7  and  in  John  xix,  37,  tt-eKevrrjaav,  they  pierced,  is  used,  which  is 
a  correct  translation  of  the  Hebrew  "ttn.  in  Zechariah  xii,  10,  but  is 

'-  : 

the  translation  of  neither  the  LXX  nor  the  Targum  of  Jonathan 
Ben  Uzziel.  Now  the  use  of  this  same  word  for  pierced,  both  in 
the  Gospel  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  is  no  slight  proof  of  identity  of 
authorship.  "  Who  bare  record  of  the  word  of  God,  and  of  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,"  etc.  (Apoc.  i,  2);  with  this  compare 
John  xix,  35,  where,  speaking  of  himself,  the  author  says :  "And  he 
that  saw  it  bare  record,  and  his  record  is  true."  'AA^vdf,  true, 
occurs  ten  times  in  the  Apocalypse,  eight  times  in  John's  Gospel, 
four  times  in  his  First  Epistle ;  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament, 
Jive  times  only. 

It  is  a  peculiarity  of  John  to  state  his  propositions  affirmatively,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  deny  their  contraries.  Thus  respecting  the 
Baptist :  "  And  he  confessed,  and  denied  not  "  (John  i,  20).  u  God 
is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all  "  (i  John  i,  5).  "  We  lie, 
and  do  not  the  truth  "  (verse  6).  This  method  of  statement  espec 
ially  abounds  in  his  First  Epistle.1  Nor  is  this  peculiarity  of  John 
wanting  in  the  Apocalypse  :  "  For  my  name's  sake  hast  laboured,  and 
hast  not  fainted  ;"  "  Thou  holdest  fast  my  name,  and  hast  not  denied 
my  faith  "  (chap,  ii,  3,  13).  "  I  will  not  blot  out  his  name  out  of 

1  For  this  peculiarity,  common  to  the  Gospel  and  Epistle,  see  the  proofs  of  the 
identity  of  authorship  of  both  in  The  Genuineness  of  John's  Gospel. 


OF  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  767 

the  book  of  life,  but  I  will  confess  his  name  before  my  Father,"  etc 
(chap,  iii,  5).  "And  hast  kept  my  word,  and  hast  not  denied  my 
name  "  (verse  8).  "Which  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not,  but  do 
lie  "  (verse  9).  "That  thou  mayest  be  clothed,  and  that  the  shame 
of  thy  nakedness  do  not  appear  "  (verse  18). 

There  is  nothing  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Apocalypse  at  variance 
with  the  other  writings  of  John,  or  with  the  rest  of  the  Nothln   lnth 
New  Testament.     Although  the  writer  is  manifestly  of  doctrine  of  the 
the  Jewish  race,  and  seems  warmly  attached  to  his  people,   variance* wiSi 

there  is  rothing  of  an  exclusive  nature  in  the  book,  and   therestof  New 
.  .....  .  ,   ..  .,          Testament. 

he  represents,  in  addition  to  those  saved  from  the  tribes 

of  Israel,  a  "  great  multitude  which  no  man  could  number,  of  all 
nations,  and  kindreds,  and  people,  and  tongues  "  (chap,  vii,  9). 

In  the  description  of  the  New  Jerusalem  he  states  that  in  the 
foundations  of  its  walls  are  "  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the 
Lamb  "  (chap,  xxi,  14).  That  Paul  is  not  included  in  this  list  shows 
no  hostility  toward  him  on  the  part  of  the  writer,  as  the  original 
apostles  were  twelve  in  number.  Besides  this,  in  a  book,  the  num 
bers  of  which  in  most  cases  are  artificial,  no  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon 
the  number  twelve. 

In  the  description  of  the  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  saints 
in  heaven,  it  is  said  :  "These  are  they  which  were  not  defiled  with 
women,  for  they  are  virgins  (ovroi  etaiv  ol  ftera  yvvain&v  OVK  epo- 
hvv$7)Gav  -napdivoi  yap  elaiv)  (chap,  xiv,  4).  We  are  not  to  under 
stand  by  this  that  the  writer  attached  great  importance  to  celibacy, 
or  that  he  made  it  necessary  to  salvation,  for  the  meaning  is  as  well 
expressed  by  Robinson:  "For  they  are  virgins,  that  is,  chaste,  pure, 
free  from  all  whoredom  and  uncleanness  as  the  symbols  of  idolatry." 
(Greek  Lexicon).  It  is,  indeed,  clear  that  the  author  of  the  book 
held  the  marriage  relation  as  holy,  otherwise  he  would  not  have 
represented  the  union  of  Christ  and  his  Church  under  the  figure  of 
a  marriage  (chap,  xix,  7-9). 

In  concluding  this  part  of  our  subject  we  may  ask,  Who  but  the 
Apostle  John  could  have  written  the  sublime  book  ?  We  have  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  theflresbyfer  John  was  capable  of  it.  John 
the  Ap  )stle,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  Gospel  which  he  wrote,  was 
competent  for  the  task.  His  appreciation  and  appropriation  of  the 
profound  discourses  of  Christ  shows  his  mental  power.  Minds  that 
make  great  use  of  symbols  and  imagery  are  often  incapable  of  deep 
and  philosophical  reflection;  but  profound  intellects  can,  if  they 
wish,  employ  bold  imagery  and  striking  symbols. 


768  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   STUDY 

CONTENTS    OF    THE    APOCALYPSE. 

The  book  opens  with  the  statement  that  it  is  a  revelation  frora 
God,  made  by  his  angel  to  John  while  in  Patmos.  After  greeting 
the  seven  Churches  of  Asia,  John  gives  a  sublime  description  of 
Christ,  who  appears  to  him  and  directs  him  to  write  to  seven  Churches 
in  Asia,  namely,  unto  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  Pergamos,  Thyatira,  Sard  is, 
Philadelphia,  and  Laodicea  (chap.  i).  The  two  following  chapters 
contain  the  messages  to  these  Churches,  in  which  they  aie  praised  or 
censured  according  as  they  have  fulfilled  or  neglected  the  require 
ments  of  the  Gospel. 

John  describes  the  throne  of  God,  its  occupant,  the  twenty-four 
elders,  the  four  cherubim,  and  the  worship  rendered  to  the  Almighty 
in  heaven,  which  he  beholds  in  the  Spirit  (chap.  iv).  He  describes 
the  book  with  seven  seals  in  the  right  hand  of  Him  who  sits  upon  the 
throne,  which  no  one  could  open  and  read,  or  look  upon.  Weeping 
on  this  account,  he  is  checked  by  one  of  the  elders,  and  assured  that 
the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  is  able  to  open  the  book.  He  there 
upon  describes  the  Lamb,  who  takes  the  book,  and  is  worshipped 
by  the  host  of  heaven  (chap.  v).  The  opening  of  six  seals  of  the 
book  by  the  Lamb,  and  the  events  that  followed,  are  portrayed 
(chap.  vi).  Four  angels  hold  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  to  prevent 
their  hurting  the  earth  before  seals  are  set  upon  the  servan  s  of  God. 
He  gives  the  number  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  as  re 
deemed  from  among  the  tribes  of  Israel,  after  which  he  describes  an 
innumerable  host  of  the  redeemed  of  all  nations  standing  before  the 
throne  and  worshipping  God.  Their  happy  condition  is  described 
(chap.  vii).  An  angel  offers  incense  with  the  prayers  of  the  saints. 
Seven  angels  with  seven  trumpets  are  prepared  to  sound.  Great 
disasters  follow  the  successive  soundings  of  six  of  these  trumpets 
(chaps,  viii,  ix).  An  angel  with  a  little  book  in  his  hand  comes 
down  from  heaven,  and  swears  that  time  shall  be  no  longer.  John, 
as  commanded,  takes  the  little  book  out  of  the  angel's  hand,  and 
devours  it  (chap.  x). 

The  prophesying  of  the  two  witnesses,  and  the  events  connected 
with  their  ministry,  follow.  The  seventh  angel  sounds,  and  the  king 
doms  of  the  world  are  converted  to  Christ ;  God  is  praised  in  heaveo 
(chap.  xi).  An  account  is  given  of  the  birth  of  the  man-child  who 
is  to  rule  the  nations.  A  description  follows  of  the  war  in  heaven 
and  the  defeat  of  Satan,  who,  being  cast  out  upon  the  earth,  perse 
cutes  the  pious  children  of  the  mother  of  the  man-child  (chap.  xii). 
A  description  is  given  of  the  beast  with  seven  heads  and  ten  horns — to 
whom  the  dragon  gives  his  seat  and  power — and  also  of  a  second  beast 


OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  769 

that  slays  all  who  refuse  to  worship  him  (chap.  xiii).  A  hundred 
and  forty-four  thousand  saints  stand  with  the  Lamb  on  Mount  Zion. 
An  angel  proclaims  the  everlasting  gospel ;  a  second  angel  an 
nounces  the  fall  of  Babylon,  and  a  third  the  punishment  of  those 
who  in  any  way  acknowledge  the  beast.  Those  who  die  in  the  Lord 
are  pronounced  happy.  The  reaping  of  the  harvest  of  the  earth  is 
described  (chap.  xiv).  Seven  angels  have  the  seven  last'  plagues. 
A  description  is  given  of  those  who  have  gained  the  victory  over  the 
beast.  One  of  the  four  cherubim  gives  seven  vials  full  of  divine 
wrath  to  seven  angels  (chap.  xv).  John  describes  the  pouring  out 
of  the  vials  of  wrath  by  the  seven  angels,  and  the  disasters  that 
follow  (chap.  xvi).  He  describes  the  great  whore,  her  crimes, 
and  the  kings  who  shall  destroy  her.  He  states  that  she  repre 
sents  the  city  (Rome)  that  rules  over  the  earth  (chap.  xvii).  The 
fall  of  Babylon  is  announced.  What  she  now  is  and  what  she 
shall  be  are  described.  The  marriage  of  the  Lamb  is  announced. 
The  angel  refuses  to  be  worshipped.  Christ  is  described  as  a  war 
rior  engaged  in  battle  with  the  kings  of  the  earth  and  their  armies. 
The  beast  and  the  false  prophet  are  captured  and  punished,  and 
the  remnant  of  Christ's  foes  are  slain  by  the  sword  (chaps,  xviii,  xix). 
Satan  is  bound  for  a  thousand  years,  and  cast  into  the  bottomless 
pit,  during  which  time  the  martyrs  reign  with  Christ.  Satan  is  let 
loose,  deceives  the  nations,  and  gathers  them  to  battle.  They  are 
consumed,  and  the  devil  is  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  The  dead 
are  raised,  stand  before  God,  and  are  judged  (chap.  xx).  A  de 
scription  is  given  of  the  New  Jerusalem  that  descends  from  heaven, 
and  also  of  the  happy  condition  of  God's  people,  and  the  misery  of 
the  wicked  and  unbelieving  (chaps,  xxi,  xxii,  1-5).  The  things  in 
this  book  are  affirmed  to  be  true,  and  the  man  is  pronounced  blessed 
who  keeps  them.  John  is  commanded  not  to  seal  up  the  prophecy 
of  the  book,  as  the  time  is  at  hand.  Those  who  keep  the  command 
ments  of  God  are  pronounced  happy.  Jesus  affirms  that  he  is  the 
author  of  these  messages  to  the  Churches.  He  gives  a  general  in 
vitation  to  partake  of  the  waters  of  life  freely,  and  utters  a  warning 
against  adding  to  or  taking  away  from  this  book  of  prophecy.  He 
affirms  he  will  come  quickly  (chaps,  xxii,  6-21). 

THE  DESIGN  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE. 

The  design  of  the  revelation  contained  in  the  book  is  stated  to 
be:  "To  show  unto  his  servants  things  (a,  what  things)    The  general  de- 
which  must  shortly  come  to  pass  "  (chap,  i,  i).     It  ap-  slsn' 
pears  from  various  parts  of  the  book  (chaps,  i,  9;  ii,  10 ;  iii,  10;  vi, 

9,  10,  ii)  that  it  was  written  in  a  time  of  a  general  persecution  of 
VOL.  I.— 49 


770          INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

the  Church,  which  must  have  come  from  Rome,  and  to  this  source 
it  is  manifestly  attributed  in  chap,  xviii,  24. 

As  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  before  Nero  had  been  chiefly 
instigated  by  the  Jews,  and  was  generally  of  a  local  character,  this  onei 
proceeding  from  the  head  of  the  empire  in  Rome,  would  be  naturally 
followed  in  the  provinces,  and  must  have  excited  strong  fears  in  the 
minds  of  many  believers  that  their  religion  would  be  crushed  by  the 
enormous  power  of  the  Roman  Government.  To  console  them,  and 
to  assure  them  of  the  utter  overthrow  of  paganism,  the  defeat  of 
Satan  and  his  allies,  the  complete  triumph  of  Christianity,  the  reward 
of  the  faithful  followers  of  Christ  and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked, 
was  the  object  of  the  writing.  In  regard  to  these  points  no  difference 
of  opinion  need  exist. 

In  other  respects,  however,  great  diversity  of  views  prevails  in  the 
Three  views  of  interpretation  of  the  book,  which  have  been  reduced 
its  meaning.  tQ  ^r^  fading  classes.  The  first  view  regards  the 
Apocalypse  as  containing  a  compend  of  the  history  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  world,  even  to  isolated  events,  until  the  coming  of  Christ. 

The  second does  not  acknowledge  the  divine  origin  of  the  vision  of 
the  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  supposes  that  he  describes  in  the 
form  of  a  vision  only  the  fears  and  the  hopes  of  his  time  respecting 
Rome,  Jerusalem,  and  the  immediate  completion  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  This  view  is  held  by  Bleek,  Ewald,  De  Wette,  and  Lucke,  who 
deny  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  book. 

The  third  view  acknowledges  that  the  prophecies  in  the  Apoca 
lypse  were  given  of  God,  and  that  they  refer  to  the  future  develop 
ment  and  completion  of  God's  kingdom,  but  do  not  give  a  detailed 
history  of  the  future,  but  only  the  great  epochs  and  moving  forces  of 
the  development  of  that  kingdom  in  its  relation  to  the  kingdom  of 
the  world.  This  view  is  held  by  Hofmann,  Hengstenberg,  Ebrard, 
Auberlen,  and  Luthardt.1  With  these  should  be  classed  Moses  Stuart. 

The  view  of  the  second  class  we  instantly  reject  in  acknowledging 
the  apostolic  origin  of  the  book  ;  and  that  of  the  first  has  no  solid 
basis,  and  admits  of  no  probable  defence,  and  has  given  rise  to  the 
wildest  speculations.  The  view  of  the  third  class  of  expositors  ia 
the  only  tenable  one.  Of  this  class,  Professor  Stuart  and  Auberlen 
are  among  the  very  best. 

'Auberlcn,  Der  Prophet  Daniel  und  die  OfFenbarung  Johannis,  pp  369-434, 
Dritte  Auflage.  Bleek's  Einleitung  by  Mangold,  p.  702. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Acts  of  Solomon, 

Book  of,  286. 
Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

accuracy  of  historical  allusions  in,  637. 

apparent  error  in,  regarding  Theudas,  642. 

author  of,  631. 

Baur's  theory  of  the  purpose  of,  633. 

Chrysostom's  opinion  concerning,  644. 

contents  of,  631. 

credibility  of  history  in,  632. 

geographical  accuracy  of,  643. 

Paley's  Horae  Paulinas  upon,  632. 

Paul's  character  the  same  as  exhibited  in 
Acts  and  in  Epistles,  635. 

reproof  of  Peter  by  Paul  explained,  634. 

sources  of  the  history  in,  632. 

theological  difference  between  Peter  and 

Paul,  none  recorded  in,  636. 
./Ethiopia  version,  64,  478. 


a  generic  title  for  Amalekite  kings,  167. 
Ahasuepus, 

probably  identical  with  Xerxes,  318. 
Alexander  the  Great, 

hellenized  the  nations  he  conquered,  457. 
Alogians, 

reject  John's  Gospel,  585,  620. 
Alphabetical  writing1. 

Israelites  possessed  it  when  they  went  down 

into  Egypt,  99. 

originated  among  Palestinians,  99. 
proofs  of  the  early  existence  of,  among  the 

Hebrews,  101. 
Amos, 

date  of  his  prophecy,  428. 
literary  style  of,  428. 
personality  of,  428. 
Antediluvians, 

their  longevity  not  mythical,  223. 
Apocalypse, 

authorship  of,  758. 

Church  fathers,  quotations  from,  relative 

to  authorship  of,  759. 
contents  of,  770. 

doubts,  early,  as  to  its  genuineness,  761. 
general  design  of,  769. 
harmony  of  its  doctrines  with  rest  of  New 

Testament,  765. 

imagery  of,  borrowed  from  Daniel,  422. 
John  the  Presbyter  not  its  author,  763. 
linguistic  character  of,  749,  755. 
linguistic  similarity  of  John's  Gospel  and 

the  Apocalypse,  705. 
meaning,  three  views  of  its,  770. 
modern  scholars,  opinions  of,  as  to  its  au 

thorship,  762. 
omitted  from  various  canons  and  versions, 

758,  761. 

peculiarities  of,  in  use  of  participle,  750. 
peculiarity  of  contents,  749. 
sublimity  of,  749. 
time  of  composition,  751. 
written  before  downfall  of  Jerusalem,  754. 
written  in  times  of  persecution,  754. 
Apocrypha, 

absurdities  of,  420. 
additions  to  Daniel  In,  423. 
bound  up  with  Septuagint,  53. 


Apocryphal  Gospels, 
absurdity  of,  621. 

Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians,  629. 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  627. 
Gospel  of  Peter,  627. 
not  received  in  early  Church,  503. 
Protevangel  of  James,  628. 
various  other,  629. 

Apologists  of  Christianity, 

early,  literary  competency  of,  454. 
Apostles, 

inspiration  of,  30. 

selected  and  trained  by  Jesus,  449. 
Apostolic  Epistles, 

established  fundamental  doctrines  of  Chris 
tianity,  500. 

Aquila's  version, 

of  Old  Testament,  54. 
Arabic  language, 

helps  to  its  study,  43,  47. 

spread  by  the  Koran,  43. 

unchanged  since  composition  of  Koran,  140. 
Arabic  versions,  65. 
Aramaean  languages,  42. 
Archaisms, 

in  Deuteronomy,  124. 

in  the  Pentateuch,  110,  112. 

prove  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch,  113. 

rationalistic  treatment  of,  1 13. 
Ark, 

directions  for  its  construction,  133. 
Armenian  version,  64,  480. 
Arts  and  sciences, 

in  ancient  Egypt,  101. 
Assyrian  monuments, 

confirmed  Bible  account  of  conquests  of 
Tiglath-Pileser,  292. 

confirm  record  of  greatness  of  Omri,  291. 

mention  Ahaz,  Jehu,  Hazael,  Rezin,  Mena- 
hem,  and  other  kings,  292,  295. 

record  capture  of  Samaria,  293. 

record  dealings  of  Sennacherib  with  Heze- 

kiah,  293. 
Authors  of  Gospels, 

men  of  repute,  531. 


Baalam's  prophecy, 

evident  antiquity  of,  167. 
Babel, 

confusion  of  tongues  at,  227. 
Babylonian  dress,  419. 
Babylonian  monuments, 

confirm  the  Bible  history  of  "cities  of 

plain,"  230. 
Babylonian  tradition 

of  creation,  221. 
Paruch, 

copies  Jeremiah's  prophecies,  391. 
Bashmurie  version,  478. 
Bethany,  603. 

Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  577. 
Bethel,  157. 


772 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


"  Beyond  Jordan,"  167. 
Biblical  criticism, 

progressive,  24. 
Bishop  and  presbyter, 

identity  of,  in  apostolic  Church,  685. 
Book  of  Acts  of  Solomon,  286. 
Boole  of  Chronicles, 

of  Kings  of  Israel,  286. 

of  Kings  of  Judab,  286. 
Book,  of  the  Upright,  265. 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah,  166. 
Books  of  Moses, 

contents  of,  95. 
Brahma, 

Indian  account  of  his  creation  of  the  world, 

218. 
Bricks, 

early  made  in  Egypt,  235. 

Caesar,  Julius, 

his  versatility,  122. 
Caasarea, 

inhabited  by  Greeks,  458. 
Cana  of  Galilee,  604. 
Canaanites, 

God  commands  their  extermination,  255. 
Canon, 

of  Ambrose,  495. 

of  Athanasius,  494. 

of  Augustine,  497. 

of  Chrysostom,  495. 

of  Cyril,  494. 

of  Eusebius,  493. 

of  Irenseus,  493. 

of  Jerome,  497. 

of  Muratori,  490. 

of  Origen,  493. 

of  Titus  Flavius  Clemens,  492. 

origin  of  term,  33. 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  488. 

according  to  the  Itala  version,  492. 

not  all  universally  received  in  first  three 
centuries,  488. 

testimony  of  early  Church  respecting,  490. 

testimony  of  Tertullian  concerning,  492. 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  33-41. 

according  to  Josephus,  38. 

according  to  Philo,  39. 

according  to  the  Talmud,  40. 

according  to  various  fathers  of  the  Church, 
33-39. 

alluded  to  by  Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  39. 

Hebrew,  its  arrangement  by  the  rabbis  of 

Tiberias,  401. 
Canonical  books, 

requirements  of,  28. 
Catalogue, 

of  Athanasius,  35. 

of  Cyril,  35. 

of  Epiphanius,  35. 

cf  Gregory  Nazianzen,  35. 

of  Hilary,  35. 

of  Jerome,  36. 

of  Josephus,  37. 

of  Melito,  33. 

of  Origen,  34. 
Catholic  Epistles,  701. 
Oedron, 

brook,  603. 
Qelsus, 

acknowledges  apostolic  origin  of  the  Gos 
pels,  520. 

unintentionally  supports  the  genuineness 

of  the  Gospels,  518. 


Cerinthus, 

his  heresy,  742. 
Chaldaisms, 

of  the  later  Hebrew  prophets,  415. 
Chaldee  language,  43. 
best  helps  in  its  study,  46. 
spoken  by  the  Jews  in  time  of  Christ,  43. 
that  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  differs  from  that  of 

the  Targums,  415. 
Chedor-laomer, 

origin  or  type  of  his  name,  231. 
Christ, 

advent  of  such  a  character  would  naturally 

call  forth  historians,  449. 
reason  for  his  not  writing  his  own  religion, 

448. 
Christianity, 

became  the  State  religion  under  Constan- 

tine,  453. 
its  rapid  diffusion  testified  to, 

in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  451. 
by  Bardesanes,  452. 
by  Cornelius,  453. 
by  Justin  Martyr,  451. 
by  Origen,  453. 
by  Pliny,  451. 
by  Tacitus,  450. 
by  Tertullian,  452. 

written  records  necessary  for  its  perpetua 
tion,  449. 
Christians, 

early  literary  proficiency  of,  454. 
portraitures  of,  by  Tacitus  and  Pliny,  450. 
Christian  writers, 

of  first  four  centuries,  455. 
Chronicles,  Books  of  the, 
author  of,  not  a  partisan,  305. 
contents  of,  297. 
credibility  of,  302. 
depreciation  of,  by  sceptics,  302. 
Ezra  probably  their  author,  298. 
genealogies  in,  297. 
historical  character  of,  303. 
numbers  exaggerated  in,  305. 
originally  one  book,  297. 
purpose  of,  300. 
sources  of,  300. 

written  in  same  style  as  Book  of  Ezra,  299. 
written  in  time  of  Ezra,  297. 
Chronological  table, 

of  Hebrew  prophets,  364. 
Chronology, 

differences  of,  between  Hebrew,  Samaritan, 

and  Septuagint  Peatateuchs,  179. 
early,  untrustworthy,  230. 
Church,  primitive, 

able  to  transmit  to  posterity  genuine  writ 
ings  of  the  apostles,  457. 
believed  in  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  25. 
Cities  of  the  plain, 
their  location,  231. 
Clementine  Homilies,  521. 

history  of,  533. 
Codices, 

Codex  Alexandrinns,  464. 

Codex  Angelicus,  474. 

Codex  Basiliensis,  467. 

Codex  Bezae  Graeco-Latinus,  466. 

Codex  Bobbiensis,  now  Taurinensis,  475. 

Codex  Brixianus,  474. 

Codex  Cantabrigiensis,  474. 

Codex  Claromontanus,  now  Vaticanus,  466, 

475. 

Codex  Colbertinus,  467,  474. 
Codex  Ephraemi  Rescriptus,  465. 
Codex  Laudianus,  466. 
Codex  Leicestrensis,  467. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


773 


Codices,  (continued.) 

Codex  Palatinus,  474. 

Codex  Sinaiticus,  463. 

Codex  Tischendorfli  Actorum,  467. 

Codex  Yaticaims,  465. 

Codex  Vercellensis,  474. 

Codex  Veronensis,  474. 

Codex  Vindobonensis,  475. 

Codices  Petropolitani,  formerly  Corbeien- 

ses,  475. 
Colossse, 

city  of,  074. 
Coloseian  Church, 

composed  largely  of  Gentiles,  674. 

founded  by  Epaphras,  674. 

Colossians,  Epistle  to  the, 

attacks  upon  its  genuineness,  676. 

Hilgenfeld's  objections  to,  677. 

modern  criticism  upon,  unreasonable,  677. 

no  traces  of  Gnosticism  in,  677. 

Pauline  origin  of,  678. 

personal  allusions  in,  by  Paul,  678. 

received  by  the  ancient  Church,  676. 

synopsis  of  contents  of,  675. 

to  be  read  to  the  Laodiceans,  676. 

written  during  Paul's  first  imprisonment 

in  Rome,  675. 

Confusion  of  tongues,  227. 
Constantine, 

orders  fifty  copies  of  Scriptures  to  be  made 

on  parchment,  462. 
Coptic  language, 

In  three  dialects,  475. 

Coptic  versions  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  475. 
Corinth, 

Church  founded  In,  653. 

city  of,  653. 
Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to  the, 

author  of,  656. 

contents  of,  655. 

genuineness  of,  656. 

persons  addressed  in,  653. 

time  of  composition  of,  654. 

written  at  Ephesus,  654. 
Corinthians,  Second  Epistle  to  the, 

addressed  to  all  Achaia,  657. 

author  of,  657. 

contents  of,  657. 

genuineness  of,  659. 

place  and  time  of  composition,  657. 
Cosmogony  of  India, 

compared  with  that  of  Moses,  218. 
Creation, 

Babylonian  account  of,  221. 

Etruscan  traditions  concerning,  221. 

Hindoo  theory  of,  218. 

hypotheses  of,  in  modern  science,  220. 

Mosaic  account  reconcilable  with  modern 
science,  yet  adapted  to  Jewish  pre-con- 
ceptions,  222. 

Persian  traditions  concerning,  221. 

Plato's  theory  of,  219. 
Criminals,  Jewish, 

sometimes  put  to  death  on  feast-days,  618. 
Critical  School,  The  New, 

-  views  of,  66,  148. 

on  the  Pentateuch,  73. 
Criticism, 

biblical,  progressive,  24. 

minor  interpolations  do  not  weaken  au 
thority,  157. 

necessity  of  proper  pre-conceptlons  on  the 

part  of  critics,  15<5. 
Crucifixion  of  Christ, 

date  of,  616. 


Cursive  letters,  463. 
Cursive  manuscripts, 

the  most  important,  466. 
Cyrus, 

mentioned  prophetically  in  Isaiah,  383. 

Dan, 

city  so  named,  159. 
Daniel, 

acquainted  with  religion  of  Zoroaster,  419. 

carried  into  captivity,  396. 

Christ  and  his  apostles  refer  to  him  as  a 

prophet,  422. 
esteemed  a  prophet  by  the  Jews  of  the  time 

of  Christ,  401. 

exact  historical  knowledge  of,  417. 
Ezekiel's  references  to,  398. 
no  other  eminent  man  of  the  same  name, 

400. 

no  reason  for  supposing  him  to  be  a  myth 
ical  character,  398. 
personal  history  of,  credible  and  probable, 

398. 

personality  of,  396. 

silence  of  Jesus  Sirach  concerning,  405. 
testimony  of  Josephus  concerning,  413. 
Daniel,  Book  of, 

admission  of,  into  the  canon,  411. 
agreement  between  Daniel's  circumstances 

and  his  book,  421. 
alleged  Greek  words  in,  402. 
alleged  historical  errors  of,  406. 
alleged  obscurity  of  later  prophecies  In,  410. 
ancient  behalf  in  its  genuineness,  397. 
apocryphal  additions  to  original  text,  423. 
Darius's  decree  ordering  the  worship  o-f 

himself,  410. 

Darius  the  Mede  no  fiction,  408. 
descriptions  of   dress  in,  agree  with  the 

monuments,  419. 
disparaged   by  Jewish  rabbis   because  of 

the  fulfilment  of  its  prophecy  in  Christ's 

coming,  401. 

divided  into  historical  and  prophetic  sec 
tions,  396. 
genuineness  of,  assailed  by  critics  in  aa- 

cient  and  modern  Limes,  397,  400. 
imagery  of,  borrowed  by  St.  John,  422. 
imagery  of,  similiar  to  that  found  on  Nine- 

vite  monuments,  420. 
impossibility  of  forgery  of,  412. 
language  of,  414. 
minute  historical  statements  of,  confirmed 

by  independent  authorities,  418. 
Nebuchadnezzar's  history,  as  regarded  in, 

supported  by  Babylonian    legends   and 

monuments,  -109,  4l9. 
Nebuchadnezzar's  image  as  described  in, 

409. 

no  prayers  in,  422. 
partly  written   in  Hebrew   and  partly  !n 

Chaldee,  397. 
phrase  "son  of  man"  adopted  by  Christ, 

422. 

proofs  of  its  genuineness,  411. 
purity  of  its  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  414. 
resemblances  of,  to  Book  of  Ezekiel,  417. 
shown  to  Alexander  the  Great,  413. 
similarity  of  its  Chaldee  to  that  of  Ezra, 

415. 

singular  position  of,  in  the  canon,  400. 
social  customs  described  in,  verified  by  In 
dependent  testimony,  419. 
unity  of  authorship  of,  396. 
Darius,  the  Mede, 

his  existence  proved,  408. 
David, 

appointed  singers,  341 . 
high  poetic  character  of,  338. 


774 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


David,  (continued.} 

instituted  singing  of  psalms  as  a  part  of 

divine  worship,  301. 
not  the  author  of  all  the  first  seventy-two 

psalins,  342. 

Deluge, 

Indications  of  two  accounts  of,  82. 

period  between  it  and  the  building  of  the 
great  pyramid,  229. 

remarkable  account  of,  found  on  tablets  in 
ruins  of  Nineveh,  225. 

traditions  of,  universal,  224. 
Dens  of  lions,  419. 
Deuteronomy,  the  Book  of,  122. 

archaisms  of,  124. 

contains  additions  to  other  Mosaic  history, 
127. 

differences  in  its  style  to  be  expected,  124. 

directions  in,  concerning  future  king  of  Is 
rael,  170. 

exact  time  of  incidents  related  not  to  be 
expected  in,  128. 

genuineness  of,  its  undigested  form  an 
evidence  of,  132. 

impossibility  of  its  forgery,  123. 

Internal  evidence  of  Mosaic  authorship  of, 
123. 

fts  entire  spirit  Mosaic,  96. 

legislation  in,  129. 

Mosaic  origin,  its  language  not  inconsist 
ent  with,  131. 

presupposes  previous  legislation,  131. 

prohibition   in,  of  the   removal  of  land 
marks,  172. 

proofs  that  it  was  written  by  Moses,  126. 

similar  in  ethics  to  rest  of  Pentateuch,  130. 

supposed  argument  against,  122. 

synopsis  of  its  contents,  95. 

the  Pentateuch  incomplete  without,  96. 

traditions,  none  floating,  out  of  which  it 
could  have  been  compiled,  127. 

"  unto  this  day,"  objection  to  the  term,  169. 

written  from  Moses's  geographical  stand 
point,  125. 

written  in  Mosaic  age,  125. 
Devil  and  Satan, 

in  Paul's  writings,  670. 
Difficulties, 

tn  Bible  study,  24. 
Document  hypothesis,  70. 

examination  of  the,  78. 

ff  proved,  does  not  disprove  Mosiac  author 
ship  of  Pentateuch,  79,  85. 

indications  of  two  accounts  of  the  deluge, 
o2. 

origin  of,  78. 

Ebal,  Mount, 

law  written  on,  209. 
Ebionites, 

mutilate  Matthew's  Gospel,  512,  538. 
Ecelesiastes  ;  or,  The  Preacher, 

authorship  of,  351. 

Chaldaisms  in,  352. 

contents  of,  353. 

date  of  the  composition  of,  351. 

design  of,  350. 

Elohistic,  352. 

purports  to  be  written  by  a  son  of  David, 
349. 

religious  teaching  in,  349. 

written  in  an  age  of  despondency,  352. 
Edessa, 

Syriac  literature  flourishes  there  in  second 

century,  468. 

Editions  of  Greek  New  Testament. 
481. 


Edom, 

an  elective  and  hereditary  monarchy,  162. 
enumeration  of  its  kings  a  proof  of  genu 
ineness  of  Pentateuch,  161. 
extreme  fertility  of,  231. 

Egypt, 

art  of  writing  in  during  the  Mosaic  age, 

bricks  early  made  in,  235. 
hieroglyphics,  102. 

Israelites,  remarkable  increase  of,  in,  236. 
monuments  of,  attest  biblical  accuracy,  235. 
sciences  and  arts  in  ancient  Egypt,  101. 
Egyptian  customs, 

accurately   described  in  story  of  Joseph, 

Egyptian  idolatry, 

imitated  by  Jeroboam,  199. 
Egyptian  priests, 

privileges  of,  234. 
Egyptians, 

bestow  gifts  on  departing  Israelites,  242. 
Egyptian  translations,  G3. 
Elohim, 

Joseph's  use  of,  79. 

places  where  used,  79-81. 

used  exclusively  in  first  two  chapters  <»* 

Exodus,  79. 
Elohim  and  Jehovah,  79. 

propriety  observed    in    alternating    t&ese 

terms  in  Genesis,  80. 
Enon,  576. 
Enumeration, 

of  Israelites,  91,  92, 134. 

of  Levites,  93. 
Epaphras, 

founder  of  the  Colosslan  Church,  646. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the, 

an  encyclical  letter,  probably,  662-666. 

certainly  written  by  Paul,  6(58. 

charged  with  being  a  mere  copy  of  Colos- 
sians,  668. 

contents  of,  666. 

difficulties  in  supposing  it  written  by  Paul 
to  the  Church  in  Ephesus,  C64. 

genuineness  of,  acknowledged  by  ancient 
Church,  667. 

Hebraisms  in,  670. 

Marcion's  copies  of,  addressed  "to  the  La- 
odiceans,"  664. 

modern  doubts  of  its  genuineness,  667. 

not  simply  an  elaboration  of  Colossians, 
670. 

Pauline  digressions  in,  671. 

Pauline  words  and  phrases  in,  669. 

persons  addressed  in,  662. 

written  shortly  after  Colossians,  666. 

written  while  Paul  was  a  prisoner,  666. 
Ephraim, 

city  of,  605. 
Epistles, 

catholic,  701. 

pastoral,  683-706. 

Pauline,  644. 
Esther,  Book  of, 

contents  of,  317. 

historical  character  of,  attested  by  the  ob 
servance  of  the  festival  of  Purim,  321. 

improbable,  but  not  incredible,  317,  319. 

Mordecai  the  probable  author  of,  322. 

name  of  God  nowhere  mentioned  in,  318. 

not  found  in  all  catalogues  of  Old  Testa 
ment,  317. 
Ethiopic  language,  43. 

helps  for  its  study,  47. 

its  literature,  43. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


775 


Ethnology, 

accordant  with  the  genealogy  of  Noah's 

sons,  226. 
Etruscan  legends, 

of  creation,  221. 

Evangelists, 

their  disagreement  a  proof  of  general  truth 
fulness,  26. 

Evidences, 

of  biblical  Inspiration,  31. 

Exode, 

independent  accounts  of,  114. 
route  of,  clearly  identified  by  modern  trav 
ellers,  244. 
traces  of,  at  Kibroth-hattaavah,  246. 

Exodus,  Hook  of, 

account  of  the  building  of  the  tabernacle 
given  in,  92. 

connects  closely  with  Genesis,  97. 

contents  of,  95. 

genealogy  of  Moses  and  Aaron  peculiarly 
given  in,  87. 

genuineness  of  chapters  iii-v,  87. 

internal  evidences  of  the  genuineness  of, 
133. 

numbering  of  the  children  of  Israel  in,  91. 

repetitions  in,  for  emphasis,  88. 
Ezekiel, 

his  symbolical   actions  really  performed, 
395'. 

Individuality    of,   stamped    upon   all   his 
writings,  394. 

personal  history  of,  393. 

wonderful  gifts  of,  395. 
Ezekiel,  Book  of  the  Prophet, 

arranged  chronologically,  395. 

contents  of,  394. 

genuineness  of,  beyond  dispute,  394. 

Jewish  traditions  of  its  revision,  395. 

language  of,  abounds  in  Chaldaisms,  395. 
Ezra, 

probable  author  of  Chronicles,  298. 
Ezra,  Book  of, 

affinity  of  its  language  to  that  of  Chron 
icles,  299. 

historical  character  of,  316. 

its  unity,  307. 

once  united  with  Nehemiah,  306. 

probably  written  by  Ezra,  308. 

Fathers,  Christian, 

value  of  their  testimony,  499,  509. 
Feasts  and  sacrifices. 

In  tabernacle  and  temple  similar,  197. 
Forgeries, 

unknown  to  the  early  Church,  532. 
Furnace, 

fiery,  a  frequent   mode  of   punishing  in 

Babylon,  419. 
Fire  worshippers,  419. 

Galatia, 

character  of  its  inhabitants,  659. 

origin  of  the  Church  there,  660. 
Galatians,  Epistle  to  the, 

contents  of,  661. 

genuineness  of,  GC2. 

occasion  of  writing  of,  661. 

persons  addressed  in,  661. 

time  and  place  of  composition  of,  660. 
Genealogy, 

in  Chronicles,  297. 

of  Christ,  as  given  by  Luke,  570. 

of  Christ,  as  given  by  Matthew,  536,  543. 


lenealogy,  (continued.) 
of  Mordecai,  319. 
of  Moses  and  Aaron,  87. 
of  Noah's   sons,  accordant   with   modern 

ethnology,  2~6. 
omissions  of,  for  generations,  usual,  240. 

ienesis, 

an  introduction  to  the  Mosaic  covenant,  96. 

antiquity  of,  incidentally  proved,  159. 

Colenso's  objections  to,  249. 

connects  with  Exodus,  97. 

document  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of,  78, 79. 

enumeration  of  Edomite  kings  a  proof  of  its 

genuineness,  161. 
indications  in,  of  two  accounts  of  deluge, 

82. 
its  history  of  creation  differs  from  all  other 

accounts,  218. 

rationalistic  treatment  of  archaisms  of,  113. 
sacred  character  of  history  in,  96. 
synopsis  of  contents  of,  9r>. 
the  terms  Elohim  and  Jehovah  in,  79. 

Georgian  version,  64. 
Gethsemane,  604. 

Gnosis, 

Paul's  use  of  the  term,  684. 

Gnosticism, 

no  traces  of,  in  Colossians,  677. 
Gnostics, 

accepted  our  Gospels  as  a  sacred  authority, 

529. 

sought  admission  into  the  Christian  com 
munity,  530. 
Gospels,  Apocryphal,  627. 

Gospels,  The  Four, 

external  evidence   of  their  genuineness, 

500,  501. 
if  genuine,  establish  Jesus'  title  as  Messiah, 

500. 
only  Gospels  universally  received  in  early 

Church,  503. 
quoted  by  Basihdes,  526. 
quoted  by  Gnostics,  5-J7. 
quoted  by  Marcion,  524. 
quoted  by  Serpent  Brethren,  529. 
quoted  by  Valentinus,  522. 
read  on  Sundays  in  Christian  assemblies, 

508. 

reasons  for  writing  each  of  the,  502. 
truth  of  Christianity  does  not  depend  on 

the,  500. 

universal  reception  of  the,  COO. 
Gothic  version,  64,  479. 
Grammars, 

the  best  Hebrew,  46. 
Greek  influence, 

on  Babylon  culture,  403. 
Greek  language, 
jEolic  dialect,  459. 
Attic  dialect,  460.  , 
diffusion  of,  in  Roman  Empire,  457. 
Doric  dialect,  459. 
Hellenistic  dialect,  460. 
Ionic  dialect,  459. 
means  by  which  it  spread,  457. 
partly  prevalent  in  Palestine  in  Christ's 

day,  458. 

used  in  Jerusalem  synagogues,  458. 
why  New  Testament  was  written  in,  459. 
Greek  literature, 

read  in  nearly  all  nations  in  the  apostolic 

age,  457. 

Greek  words, 
In  Daniel,  403. 
in  Genesis,  404. 


776 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Habakkuk,  Book  of  the  Prophet, 
contents  of,  437. 
date  of  delivery  of  prophecies  of,  438. 

Hadar, 

not  to  be  confounded  with  Hadad,  162. 

Haggai,  Book  of  the  Prophet, 

contents  of,  440. 
Hagiography,  36,  40. 

Hebraisms, 

in  Matthew,  547. 

in  New  Testament  Greek,  461. 

in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  670. 
Hebraists, 

German,  English,  and  American,  45. 
Hebrew  language, 

ancient  characters  of  the,  45. 

cultivated  almost  exclusively  by  Jews  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  45. 

dead  in  time  of  Christ,  458. 

destruction  of  early  MSS.  in,  48. 

imperative  mood  often  used  for  a  simple 
future  in,  344. 

list  of  most  valuable  MSS.  in,  48,  49. 

MSS.,  none  very  ancient  extant  in,  48. 

not  liable  to  change,  44. 

periods  of  the,  44. 

probability  of  change  in  the,  103. 

simpler  in  its  construction  than  Greek,  461. 

sources  of  acquaintance  with,  45. 

square  characters  of  the,  44. 

the  language  of  the  Canaanites,  41. 

the  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  41. 

varieties  of,  42. 

Hebrew  philologists,  45,  46. 
Hebrew  poetry, 

characteristics  of,  323. 
Hebrew  prophets, 

chronological  table  of,  364. 
Hebrew  Scriptures, 

lack  of  modern  critical  labors  upon,  50. 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the, 

anonymous   in    the   most   ancient   Greek 
MSS.,  532. 

apostolic  doctrines  in,  706. 

conjectures  as  to  date  of  its  composition, 
705. 

contents  of,  706. 

impossibility  of  fixing  on  author  of,  704. 

local— not  general,  698. 

no  mention  of  the  author  in  the,  700. 

not  addressed  to  Palestinian  or  Alexan 
drian  Christians,  698,  699. 

objections  to  Pauline  origin  of,  703. 

opinions  of  the  Fathers  on  its  authorship, 
700. 

probably  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  in 
Asia  Minor,  699. 

reasons  for  believing  it  to  have  originated 
at  least  indirectly  from  Paul,  702,  705. 

reasons  for  crediting  it  to  Apollos,  704. 

reasons  for  crediting  it  to  Barnabas,  704. 

style,  peculiarity  of  its,  703. 

style,  purity  of  its,  700. 

value  of,  706. 

written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem,  705. 

Hebron,  city  of,  165. 
Heliopolis, 

a  depository  of  ancient  learning,  115. 
Hellenistic  Greek, 

characteristics  of,  460. 
Heresies,  521-530,  585,  586,  742. 
Heretics, 

testimony  of,  to  the  four  Gospels  521. 
Hexapla,  54. 


Hieroglyphic  writing, 

in  Egypt,  102. 
Hobab, 

his  relationship  to  Moses,  90. 
Horeb,  Mount,  90,  124. 
Hosea, 

personality  of,  424. 
Hosea,  Book  of  the  Prophet, 

contents  of,  424. 

date  of  composition  of,  424. 

poetical  style  of,  425. 
Human  race, 

unity  of,  222. 
Hyperbaton, 

Paul's  frequent  use  of,  25. 

Indo-Germanie  languages, 

originated  in  Western  Asia,  222. 
Inspiration, 

degrees  of,  27-30. 

evidences  of,  31. 

human  element  in,  27. 

verbal,  held  by  Jews,  and  some  of  the  early 

Fathers,  28. 
Interpolations, 

minor,  do  not  weaken  authority,  157. 
Isaiah, 

personal  history  of,  365. 
Isaiah,  Book  of  the  Prophet, 

analysis  of  its  chapters,  37'0. 

analysis  of  third  section  of,  376. 

ancient  testimony  to  its  genuineness,  367. 

Chaldaisms  not  found  in  latter  part  of,  379. 

contents  of,  364. 

explanation  of  difficulties  in,  381. 

genuineness  of  chapters  xi  to  Ixvi,  378. 

historical  portion  of,  366. 

internal  evidence   against  authorship  of, 
during  ihe  captivity,  380. 

last  division,  genuineness  of,  denied  by 
rationalistic  school,  367. 

last  division,  largely  Messianic,  382. 

last  division,  not  written  during  the  Baby 
lonian  captivity,  381. 

most  wonderful  book  of  ancient  world,  364. 

predictions  of  restoration  of  Judab,  377. 

predictions  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple, 
377. 

prophecies  of,  concerning  Cyrus,  382. 

prophecies  concerning  foreign  nations,  371. 

prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah,  371. 

prophecies  relating  to  King  Jqsiah,  a  hun 
dred  and  fifty  years  before  his  reign,  382. 

purity  of  its  style,  368. 

quoted  by  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah,  383. 

quoted  in  New  Testament,  368. 

rationalistic  criticism  unable  to  do  it  jus 
tice,  369. 

second  division  of,  historical,  375. 

when  written,  3G5. 
Israel, 

to  be  governed  by  kings,  160. 

warned  against  false  prophets,  360. 
Israelites, 

enumeration  of,  91,  92, 134. 

increase  of,  reasons  for,  241. 

in  Egypt,  237-241. 

in  Egypt,  length  of  stay,  238. 
Itala  version,  62,  472,  492. 

proof  of  its  African  origin,  474. 

Jacob, 

explanation  of  discrepancies,  238. 
his  family— discrepancies  in  list  of,  237. 
Jairs, 

in  Judges  and  Joshua,  169. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


777 


James,  General  Epistle  of, 

addressed  to  Jewish  believers,  713. 
agreement  of,  with  the  writings  of  Paul 

713. 

early  doubts  of  authenticity  of,  711. 
genuineness  of,  714. 
its  author,  James,  son  of  Alpheus,  707. 
not  circulated  among  Gentile  Christians  o 

the  early  Church,  713. 
not  received  by  Erasmus  or  Luther,  712. 
peculiarities  of  style  of,  714. 
quoted  by  early  fathers,  711. 
written  before  destruction  of  Jerusalem 

716. 

James,  son  of  Alpheus, 
author  of  Epistle  of  James,  707. 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  709. 
cousin  of  Jesus,  an  actual,  709. 
identical  with  "the  Lord's  brother."  709. 
surnamed  "  the  Just,"  and  "  the  Less,"  707 

was  he  an  apostle  ?  709. 
James,  son  of  Zebedee, 

his  early  death,  707,  708. 
Jashur,  (see  Book  of  the  Upright.) 
Jehoiada, 

carried  out  musical  arrangements  of  Da 
vid,  341. 
Jehoshaphat, 

appointed  singers  unto  the  Lord,  341. 
Jehovah, 

especially  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  80. 

God  reveals  himself  to  Moses  as,  86. 

no  fixed  place  to  worship  in  the  time  of 

David,  215. 

probability  of  Moses  using  the  term,  81. 
the  term,  used  alternately  with  Elohim, 

G5,  80. 

use  of  both  terms— Jehovah  and  Elohim- 
no  proof  of  the  document  theory.,  83-84. 
Jeremiah, 

character  of,  384. 

commanded  by  God  to  write  his  proph 
ecies,  391. 
credited  with  the  composition  of  the  Books 

of  Kings,  289. 

death  of,  not  recorded,  384. 
personal  history  of,  383. 
prophesied  in  a  period  of  great  corruption 

and  idolatry,  384. 
Jeremiah,  Book  of  the  Prophet, 

collection  and  arrangement  of  prophecies 

in,  391. 

contents  of,  384. 
dates  of  the  deliverance  of  prophecies  in, 

38t5, 

few  Messianic  prophecies  In,  384. 
four  divisions  of,  384. 
genuineness  of,  385. 

Hebrew  text  of,  and  Septuagint,  differ,  392. 
its  imitation  of  Isaiah,  386-388. 
last  chapter  of,  appended  by  a  later  hand, 

passag-s  In,  doubted   by  modern  critics, 


prophesies  of,  not  in  chronological  order, 

shortening  of  proper  names,  388. 
Jericho, 

falling  of  its  walls,  268. 
Jeroboam's  idolatry, 

proves  that  the  Mosaic  law  was  held  sacred 

in  his  day,  198. 
Jerome, 

erudition  of,  62. 

gradual  corruption  of  his  version,  62. 

his  revision  of  Old  and  New  Testament,  62. 


Jerome's  revision,  475. 
Jerusalem, 

destruction  of,  by  the  Romans,  a  punish 
ment  for  its  sins,  257. 
the  council  at,  to  guard  sacred  books,  40. 
Jerusalem  Syriae  version,  472. 
Jethro, 

relationship  of,  to  Moses,  90. 
Jews, 

modern,  violate  Mosaic  law,  216. 
Job, 

his  existence  verified  by  the  mention  of 

his  name  in  Ezekiel,  329. 
traditionally   one   of   the  seven    heathen 

prophets  of  primitive  times,  329. 
Job,  Book  of, 

a  sacred  drama,  326. 

author  of,  probably  an  inhabitant  of  south 
ern  Judea,  332. 
contents  of,  320. 
date  of  composition  of,  330,  332. 
design  of,  329. 

divides  into  prologue,  dialogue,  and  epi 
logue,  326. 
Elihu's   discourses  in,   rejected   by  some 

critics,  327. 

genuineness  of  prologue  and  epilogue  con 
ceded  by  critics,  3x27. 

no  reason  assigned  in,  for  Job's  great  suf 
ferings,  329. 
not  history,  328. 
probably  written  in  the  time  of  Solomon, 

sublimity  of,  3,33. 

supposed  by  some  to  have  been  written  by 

Moses,  .330. 

value  of  teachings  of,  334. 
written  in  a  post-Mosaic  age,  331. 
Joel,  Book  of, 

character  of  prophecy  in,  426. 

date  of  prophecy,  426. 

personal  history  of  the  prophet  unknown, 

plague  of  locusts  in,  to  be  literally  under 
stood,  425. 

resemblance  to  Amos,  426. 
John,  First  Epistle  General  of, 

chapter  v,  7,  spurious,  744. 

contents  of,  743. 

design  of,  706. 

genuineness  of,  598,  742. 

time  of  composition  of,  743. 
John,  Gospel  according  to, 

alleged  discrepancy  between  John  and 
other  evangelists  respecting  date  of 
Christ's  crucifixion,  616. 

ancient  testimony  in  its  favor,  586. 

authenticity  of  chapter  v,  3,  4,  627. 

authenticity  of  chapters  vii,  53-viiI,  II,  626. 

authenticity  of  chapter  xxi,  62(1. 

author  of,  acquainted  with  Hebrew  lan 
guage,  600. 

author  of,  acquainted  with  Samaritans,  601. 

author  of,  familiar  with  Jewish  customs, 
602. 

authorship  of,  indicated  throughout  the 
book,  607. 

Canon  of  Polycrates,  which  must  have 
been  that  of  Ephesian  Church,  included 
it,  588. 

correctness  of  the  reports  of  Christ's  dis 
courses  in,  611-613. 

delineation  of  Christ  in,  apparently  differ 
ent  from  that  of  other  Gospels,  609. 

estimates  of,  by  modern  critics  of  various 
schools,  621. 

genuineness  of,  received  by  early  Church, 
583. 


778 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


John,  Gospel  according  to,  (continued.) 

integrity  of,  625. 

internal  evidence  that  it  proceeded  from 
John,  600. 

modern  attacks  on  its  genuineness,  583. 

passages  in,  suggesting  an  eye-vvi  ness,  GOG. 

quoted  by  the  Fathers,  5. 1 

rejected  by  Alogians,  585,  <>20. 

relation  of,  to  Passover  controversy,  619. 

sceptical  theory  concerning,  untenable,  585. 

similarity  of  John  and  the  other  evangel 
ists,  611. 

synopsis  of  contents  of,  624. 

term  Logos  in  John's  Gospel  and  Philo, 
G15. 

testimony  of  Canon  of  Muratori  concern 
ing,  589. 

time  and  place  of  its  composition,  023. 

topographical  accuracy  of,  603. 

written  by  the  author  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  John,  595. 

John,  Saint, 

account  of,  by  Polycrates,  581. 

anecdotes  of,  related  by  Clement,  752. 

author  of  the  Apocalypse,  756. 

banishment  of,  to  Patrnos,  752. 

Irenoeus's  account  of,  580. 

peculiarities  of  literary  style  of,  765,  766. 

personal  history  of,  579. 

return  of,  from  Patmos  after  Nero's  death, 
751. 

was  the  beloved  disciple,  607. 
John,  Second  Epistle  of, 

authorship  of,  746. 

opinions  of  Church  Fathers  concerning,  747. 

to  whom  addressed,  746. 

John,  the  Presbyter,  762,  763. 

John,  Third  Epistle  of, 

contents  of,  748. 
genuineness  of,  748. 
personality  of  Gaius,  747. 

Jonah,  Book  of, 

character  and  design  of,  431,  433. 

conjecture  of  critics  concerning,  431. 

contents  of,  430. 

mission  of  Jonah  to  Nineveh  real,  434. 

peculiarities  of  language  of,  433. 

regarded  by  Jews  and  early  Christians  as 

real  history,  432. 
Jonathan  ben  Uzziel 

personality  of,  58. 
Jordan, 

crossing  of  the,  by  Israelites,  268. 

use  of  the  phrase,  "  beyond  Jordan,"  164. 

Joseph, 

his  story  an  exact  picture  of  Egyptian  cus 
toms,  232. 

Joshua,  Book  of, 

account  in,  of  the  falling  of  the  walls  of 
Jericho.  268. 

authorship  of,  267. 

contents  of,  259. 

credibility  of,  267. 

crossing  of  the  Jordan,  as  related  in,  268. 

date  and  authorship  of,  261. 

difference  in  literary  style  of  the  two  divis 
ions  of,  261. 

evidently  written  before  Judges,  266. 

no  contradiction  between  its  two  divisions, 
296. 

not  a  collection  of  fragments,  264. 

not  written  by  the  same  author  as  the  Pen 
tateuch,  266. 

Pentateuch,  the  existence  and  authority  of, 
confli  med  in,  208. 

proof  of  antiquity  of,  210. 


Joshua,  Book  of,  (conUmwd.) 
references  to,  in  Deuteronomy,  208. 
standing  still  of  sun  and  moon,  as  related 

in,  268. 
unity  of,  260. 
Judaism, 

necessarily  local,  448. 
Jude, 

personal  career  of,  738. 
Jude,  Book  of, 

author  of,  does  not  claim  to  be  an  apostle, 

740. 

contents  of,  738. 
date  of  composition  of,  741. 
modern  criticism  upon,  740. 
quotations  in,  from  apocryphal  writings, 

740. 

various  opinions  of  Christian  fathers  con 
cerning  the  genuineness  ol,  739. 

Judges,  Book  of, 

apparent  contradictions   in,  harmonized, 

2j  5. 

authorship  of,  374. 
begins  where  Joshua  leaves  off,  266. 
contents  of,  270. 
corroborates  Pentateuch,  210. 
credibility  of  its  history,  274. 
date  of,  274. 

mainly  written  by  one  author,  271. 
not  written  before  the  time  of  Saul,  273. 
unity  of,  270. 
written  before  the  middle  of  David's  reign, 


Kings,  Books  of, 

annals  of  the  respective  kings,  £88. 

author  of,  unknown,  289. 

credibility  of,  290. 

documents  referred  to  throughout,  286. 

history  in,  confirmed  by  ancient  monu 
ments,  290. 

history  in,  confirmed  by  Phoenician  records, 
286. 

history  in,  confirmed  by  that  of  Berosus, 
296. 

history  in,  distinguished  by  fidelity  and  im  , 
partiality,  290. 

history  in.  may  be  divided  into  three  pe 
riods,  286. 

originally  one  book,  286. 

source  of,  286. 

when  written,  287,  289. 

Lamentations,  Book  of, 
contents  of,  358. 
Jeremiah,  author  of,  359. 
versification  of,  artificial,  358. 

Landmarks, 

removal  of,  172. 
Language  of  Deuteronomy, 

proves  a  Mosaic  origin,  131. 
Languages, 

Arabic,  43. 

Arameean,  42. 

Chaldge,  43,  415. 

Ethiopic,  43. 

Greek,  457. 

Hebrew,  42. 

Indo-Germanic,  222. 

Oriental,  stability  of,  140. 

Punic,  42. 

Syriac,  47. 
Latin  versions, 

numerous  and  conflicting,  62. 

the  Itala  has  preference  over  the  other,  62. 

the  origin  of  Vulgate,  62. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


779 


Latin  versions    of  the    New  Testa 
ment,  4?2. 

Law  of  Moses, 

adapted  to  Israelites,  257. 

concerning  lepers,  133. 

divine  authority  of,  28. 

non-observance  of,  no  proof  of  its  non-ex 
istence,  213. 

observed  in  time  of  Jeroboam,  198. 

observed  in  time  of  Judges,  210. 

severity  of,  28,  257. 

violated  by  modern  Jews,  216. 

written  on  Mount  Ebal,  209. 
Legislation, 

in  Deuteronomy,  129. 
Leprosy, 

laws  respecting,  written  in  desert,  133. 
Levitical  precepts, 

in  force  in  time  of  Judges,  210. 
Leviticus, 

contents  of,  95. 

records  made  at  time  of  occurrence  of  the 

events,  133. 
Lexicons, 

best  Hebrew,  46. 
Literary  proficiency, 

of  the  early  Christians,  454. 
"  Logos," 

used  by  Philo,  587. 
Longevity, 

of  the  antediluvians  not  mythical,  223. 
Luke,  Gospel  according  to, 

contents  of,  573. 

date  of  composition  of,  570. 

depreciates  none  of  the  apostles,  576. 

design  of,  575. 

language  of,  similar  to  that  of  the  Acts,  569. 

matter  in  Luke  not  in  Matthew,  573. 

matter  in  Matthew  not  in  Luke,  574. 

no  doubt  in  ancient  Church  as  to  its  author, 
570. 

statement  of,  respecting  Lysanius,  578. 

statement  of,  respecting  taxing  under  Cy- 
renius,  577. 

written  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  572. 
Luke,  Saint, 

author  of  third  Gospel  and  of  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  504. 

his  accurate  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Ro 
man  history  and  geography,  578. 

his  personal  history,  5b3. 

qualifications  as  a  writer,  564. 

unquestionably  Paul's  travelling  compan 
ion,  555. 

Maccabees, 

Scripture  learning  flourished  under  the,  412. 
Maccabees,  Books  of, 

contain  absurdities,  420. 

in  favour  with  some  early  Fathers,  35. 
Mai, 

publishes  Codex  Vaticanus,  465. 
Malaehi,  Book  of, 

character  of  prophecy,  447. 

contents  of,  446. 

date  of,  446. 

questions  as  to  the  identity  of  its  author, 

446. 
Manna, 

cessation  of  the,  163. 
Manuscripts, 

easily  destroyed,  462. 

uncial,  463. 

ancient,  many  still  existing,  462. 

cursive,  466. ' 


Mark,  Gospel  according  to, 

brevity  of,  554. 

character  of,  55 1. 

date  of  composition  of,  557. 

derived  from  independent  sources,  555. 

Ewald's  complex  theory  of,  550. 

genuineness  of,  550. 

integrity  of,  559. 

last  twelve  verses  of,  not  genuine,  559. 

omissions  of,  554. 

place  of  composition  of,  559. 

use  of  "  Lord,"  "  Christ,"  and  otherphrasea 
in,  562. 

written  after  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  557. 

written  for  Gentile  Christians,  556. 

written  originally  in  Greek,  559. 
Mark,  Saint, 

personal  history  of,  553. 

wrote  at  Peter's  dictation,  502. 

Masorites, 

their  labours,  49. 
Matthew,  Gospel  according  to, 

chronological  order  more  clearly  observed 
in,  than  in  Luke  or  Mark,  549. 

Church  Fathers  agree  that  Matthew  was 
author  of,  ">'i4. 

contents  of,  551 . 

date  of  composition  of,  544. 

designed  especially  for  Jewish  Christians, 
544. 

doubts  of   late  critics  respecting,  consid 
ered,  548. 

early  reception  of,   by  Jewish   Christian 
sects,  541. 

genuineness  of,  547. 

Greek  original  of,  some  modern  critics  fa 
vour  a,  542. 

Greek  version  of,  everywhere  received  in 
the  early  Christian  Church,  542. 

Hebraisms  of,  show  that  its  author's  ver 
nacular  was  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldee,  547. 

internal  evidence  that  it  was  designed  for 
Jewish  Christians,  543. 

interpolations  in,  alleged,  546. 

matter  in  Luke  not  in  Matthew,  573. 

matter  in  Matthew  not  in  Luke,  574. 

mutilated  by  the  Ebionites,  534. 

oldest  of  the  four  Gospels,  545. 

written  originally  in  Hebrew,  534-537. 

Matthew,  Saint, 

his  personal  history,  533. 
Medes  and  Persians, 

flre-worshippers,  419. 

laws  of,  418. 

Memphitic  version,  476. 
Meribah  and  Massah,  89. 

Messianic  prophecies, 

fulfilment  of,  32. 
Micah,  Book  of, 

character  of  its  style,  435. 

date  of  prophecy,  435. 
Midianites, 

slaughter  of,  248. 
Minor  prophets,  423. 
Miracles, 

conceivable  as  the  foundation  of  a  relig 
ion,  253. 

general  objections  to,  252. 
Mishna,  its  date,  132. 
Moab, 

topography  of,  correctly  given  in  story  of 

Balaam,'  247. 
Moabite  stone,  290. 


780 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Monuments, 

Assyrian,  corroborate  Kings  and  Chroni 
cles,  202. 

Babylonian,  confirm  Bible  narrative,  230. 

Egyptian,  explain  customs  mentioned  in 
Genesis,  235. 

Mordeeai, 

genealogy  of,  319. 

probable  author  of  Esther,  322. 

Mosaic  account  of  creation, 
compared  with  that  of  Plato,  219. 
compared  with  that  of  the  Hindoos,  218. 
in  harmony  with  modern  science,  220. 

Mosaic  history, 

sacred  character  of,  96. 
Mosaic  law, 

adapted  to  the  Israelites,  257. 

equally  severe  to  idolaters  and  disobedient 
Hebrews,  257. 

its  non-observance  no  proof  of  its  non-ex 
istence,  213. 

severity  of,  28,  257. 

written  on  Mount  Ebal,  209. 
Moses, 

author  of  Pentateuch,  114. 

author  of  Psalm  xc,  339. 

genealogy  of,  87. 

had  ample  time  to  write  laws  and  annals, 
116. 

his  father-in-law  known  by  various  names, 
90. 

independent  testimony  concerning,  114. 

meekness,  reports  his  own,  120. 

probability  of  his  having  written  history 
and  law's,  114,  116. 

record  of  his  law  kept  by  himself,  117. 

versatility  of,  122. 
Mount  Ebal, 

the  Law  of  Moses  written  upon,  209. 
Music, 

in  temple  worship,  341. 
Mythology,  Greek  and  Roman, 

traces  of  Mosaic  history  in,  228. 

Nahum,  Book  of, 

date  of  its  composition,  436. 

prophecies  concerning  Nineveh,  436. 

prophetic  style  of,  437. 
Nathan, 

probable  author  of  Books  of  Samuel,  280. 
Nebuchadnezzar, 

early  history  of,  406,  407. 

golden  image  of,  409. 

insanity  of,  409. 

palace  of,  419. 
Nehemiah,  Book  of, 

author  of.  obtains  permission  to  visit  and 
rebuild  Jerusalem,  312. 

contents  of,  312. 

doubts  concerning  authorship  of  chapters 
viii.  ix,  x,  312. 

historical  character  of,  316. 

unity  of,  312. 

written  by  Nehemiah,  313. 

written  wholly  in  Hebrew,  312. 
Nero, 

blames  Christians  for  firing  Rome,  450. 

expected  to  reappear,  755. 

his  name  answers  to  the  number  six  hun 
dred  and  sixty-six,  755. 

persecution  of  Christians  during  his  reign, 

Nimrod, 

story  of,  illustrated  on  ancient  monuments, 


Nineveh, 

really  visited  by  Jonah,  434. 
Noah's  sons, 

their  genealogy,  226. 
Numbers, 

contents  of,  98. 

enumeration  of  the  Israelites  in,  134. 

Meribah  and  Massah,  89. 

miraculous  supply  of  quails  mentioned  in, 


Obadiah,  Book  of, 

date  of,  429. 

personal  history  of  its  author  unknown,  429. 

resemblance  of,  to  Jeremiah,  xlix,  17-22, 

429. 

Omer,  size  of,  164. 
Omri, 

mentioned  in  Assyrian  inscriptions,  and  on 

the  Moabite  stone,  292. 
Onkelos,  58. 
Oriental  languages, 

stability  of,  140. 
Origin  of  man, 

recent,  222. 

Papyrus, 

the  most  common  writing  material  in  the 

apostolic  age,  462. 
Parchment, 

used  in  the  apostolic  age,  462. 

after  fourth  century,  commonly  used  in 

copying  Scriptures,  462. 
Passover  controversy,  619. 
Passover,  Feast  of, 

credibility  of  history  of,  243. 
Pastoral  Epistles, 

absurdity  of  theory  of  forgery  of,  690. 

apostolic  origin,  proofs  of,  684. 

doubts  of  genuineness  of,  684. 

genuineness,  inherent  proof  of,  690. 

historical  incidents  referred  to  in,  688. 

likelihood  of  Paul  writing  such  epistles, 
685. 

objections  drawn  from  style  of,  685. 

Pauline  origin,  proofs  of,  688. 

special  objections  to  First  Timothy,  686. 

unity  of  authorship,  proofs  of,  in,  687. 

universally  received  in  early  Church,  687. 
Patmos, 

Saint  John  banished  to,  753,  754. 
Patristic  views  of  inspiration,  24-27. 
Paul,  Saint, 

apparent  inconsistencies  in  his  statements, 
120. 

attainments  of,  in  knowledge,  645. 

characteristics  of,  649. 

conversion  of,  646. 

his  traveling  companion,  565. 

bis  use  of  terms  "  devil  "  and  "  Satan,"  670. 

his  use  of  the  term  "gnosis,"  684. 

imprisonments  of,  672. 

later  history  of,  647. 

missionary  journeys  of,  646. 

personal  history  of,  as  given  in  Acts  and 
epistles,  635,  644. 

reproof  of  Peter  by,  explained,  634. 

travels  of,  after  his  first  imprisonment  iu 
Rome,  688. 

use  of  hyperbaton  by,  25. 

visit  of,  to  Philippi,  672. 
Pauline  digressions,  671. 
Pauline  epistles,  644,  672,  683. 
Pauline  phraseology,  669,  670. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


781 


Pentateuch, 

accuracy  of,  proved  by  Egyptian  monu 
ments,  234. 

allusions  to,  in  the  Books  of  Proverbs  and 
Psalms,  1'Jl. 

antiquity  of,  proved  by  account  of  Edom- 
ites,  162. 

apparent  contradictions  in,  93. 

arrangement  of  laws  in,  unmethodical,  85. 

attacked  by  Colenso,  249. 

attacked  in  the  Wolfenbuttel  Fragments, 
(59. 

author  of,  had  an  intimate  knowledge  of 
events  narrated,  264. 

authority  of,  indicated  in  Books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings,  1(.X5. 

authorship  of,  its  own  statements  concern 
ing,  worthy  of  credit,  118. 

authorship  of  modern  skepticism  regard 
ing,  67. 

authorship  of,  Mosaic,  66,  85,  258. 

chronological  difficulties  of,  93. 

contents  of,  95. 

credibility  of  the  history  in  the,  218. 

defended  by  certain  rationalists,  68. 

divine  authority  of,  assumed,  258. 

document  hypothesis  of,  its  origin,  78. 

enumeration  of  Edomite  kings,  a  proof  of 
genuineness  of,  161. 

external  evidence  of  the  antiquity,  author 
ity,  and  integrity  of,  180. 

falsity  of  the  theory  that  the  early  legisla 
tion  of  the  Pentateuch  consisted  only  of 
Exodus  xxi-xxii,  142. 

Genesis  and  Exodus  closely  connected,  97. 

genuineness  of,  evidenced  by  genealogies 
and  lists  of  kings,  158,  159. 

genuineness  of.  evidenced  by  slight  treat 
ment  of  unimportant  years,  141. 

genuineness  of,  internal  evidences  of,  133. 

Hebrew,  advantage  of,  over  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  178. 

historical  facts  in,  correspond  with  those 
in  Joshua,  209. 

history  in,  closely  interwoven  with  its  leg 
islation,  139. 

history  in,  credible,  218. 

history  in,  natural  order  of,  97. 

history  of  creation  in,  differs  from  all  other 
accounts,  218. 

history  of  views  respecting  it,  66. 

interpolations  in,  conceded  to  be  few  and 
slight,  142. 

king  of  Israel,  directions  in,  concerning, 
168. 

laws  of,  improbability  of  their  modifica 
tion,  132. 

laws  of,  interwoven  with  history  in,  139. 

laws  of,  recognized  by  Jezebel,  200. 

Mosaic  authorship  of,  acknowledged  by 
Peter  and  Paul,  259. 

Mosaic  authorship  of,  assumed,  258. 

Mosaic  authorship  of,  want  of  candour  in 
its  opponents,  155. 

Moses's  meekness,  as  recorded  im,  reported 
by  himself,  120. 

Moses  undoubtedly  the  author  of,  66, 85, 258. 

no  contradiction  between  Deuteronomy  and 
other  books,  129. 

no  portion  of  it  of  post-Mosaic  origin,  170. 

not  written  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  316. 

objections  to,  based  on  its  explanation  of 
the  size  of  an  omer,  164. 

objections  to,  based  on  the  time  of  the  ces 
sation  of  manna,  160. 

older  than  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  110. 

origin  of  the  word  Pentateuch,  66. 

parallels  between  history  in,  and  the  his 
tory  in  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  200. 


Pentateuch,  (continued.) 

passages  in,  supposed  to  indicate  a  post- 
Mosaic  age,  105. 

phrase,  "  unto  this  day,"  as  used  in,  169. 

probably  revised  by  Moses  shortly  before 
his  death,  153. 

post-Mosaic  age  in  the,  alleged  traces  of  a, 
157. 

proof  of  the  great  antiquity  of,  103. 

proof  of  the  existence  and  authority  of,  in 
the  Book  of  Joshua,  20H. 

quoted  by  David,  202. 

quoted  by  Solomon,  198. 

rationalistic  critics,  concessions  of,  con 
cerning,  137. 

rationalistic  treatment  of  archaisms  in,  60. 

references  in,  to  Moses  in  third  person, 
120. 

references  in,  to  the  Book  of  the  Law,  119. 

reference  to,  in  Joshua's  acts,  203. 

referred  to  bv  the  "Greater"  and  the 
"Lesser"  Prophets,  IhO-JW. 

repetition  in,  for  emphasis,  88. 

repetitions,  frequent,  in,  83. 

Samaritan,  scant  agreement  between,  and 
that  of  the  Septuagint,  178. 

Samaritan  versions  of,  65,  174. 

statement  of  the  Pentateuch  concerning  its 
author,  117. 

tabernacle,  account  of,  as  given  in  Mosaic 
age,  133. 

terms  Elohim  and  Jehovah,  as  used  in.  65. 

testimony  by  the  history  of  the  Books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings  to  the  existence  and 
authority  of  the  Pentateuch,  194. 

topography  of,  accurate,  248. 

traces  of,  in  Book  of  Ruth,  205. 

unity  of  its  plan,  95,  138. 

use  and  authority  of,  throughout  post-Mo 
saic  age,  180. 

various  difficulties  in,  answered,  90. 

various  styles  of,  94. 

wonderful  elevation  of  its  theology,  258. 

Persecution  of  Christians, 
by  Nero,  450,  754. 
under  Domitian,  754. 
under  Trajan,  451. 

Persians, 

regarded  their  kings  as  the  incarnation  of 

Ormuzd,  418. 

their  relations  with  the  Medes,  418. 
their  traditions  of  creation,  221. 
the  sexes  mingled  at  their  feasts,  417. 

Peshito  version, 

contains  possibly  to  a  great  extent  the 
original  Syro-Chaldee  text  of  Matthew's 
Gospel,  471. 

first  known  to  Europeans  in  sixteenth  cen 
tury,  4G9. 

its  antiquity  and  value,  469. 

late  valuable  printed  editions,  470. 

most  ancient  manuscripts  of,  470. 

of  Old  and  New  Testaments,  61. 

Peter,  First  Epistle  General  of, 

addressed  to  Gentiles  chiefly,  722. 

contents  of,  733. 

doubtless  written  by  Peter,  732. 

Hilgenfeld's  theory' of,  absurd,  720. 

improbability  of  its  rejection  by  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  723. 

objections  to,  of  modern  critics  considered, 
724. 

passages  in,  said  to  be  borrowed  from  Paul 
and  James,  725,  728. 

sent  by  Silvanus,  733. 

written  from  Babylon,  732. 

written,  probably,  during  persecutions  un 
der  Nero,  729. ' 


782 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Peter,  Saint, 

characteristics  of,  719. 

his  crucifixion  in  Rome,  A.D.  67  or  68,  721. 

notices  of,  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 

720,  721. 

personal  history  of,  718. 
probably  four  years  in  Rome,  721. 
tomb  pointed  out  in  A.D.  200,  721. 

Peter,  Second  Epistle  General  of, 
contents  of,  734. 
doubts  of  reformers  and  modern  critics  as 

to  its  genuineness,  737. 
hardly  noticed  by  the  Fathers,  736. 
persons  addressed  in,  734. 
recognized  in  the  fourth  century,  736. 
resemblance  of,  to  Jude,  735. 
written  in  more  elegant  Greek  than  the 

First  Epistle,  736. 

Plagues, 

narrative  in  Genesis  correspondent  with 

Egyptian  customs,  235. 
of  locusts,  425. 

Plato's  cosmogony, 

compared  with  that  of  Moses,  219. 
Philemon,  Epistle  to, 

cause  of  writing  of,  696. 

date  of,  697. 

genuineness  of,  697. 

opinions  of  the  Fathers  concerning,  697. 
Philippi,  city  of,  671. 

Paul's  visit  to,  672. 

its  Church  composed  of  Gentiles,  672. 
Philippians,  Epistle  to  the, 

assailed  by  modern  sceptics,  674. 

genuineness  of,  C.73. 

synopsis  of  contents  of,  678. 

written  during  Paul's  first  imprisonment 

in  Rome,  672. 
Philistines, 

familiar  with  history  of  Israel  as  recorded 

in  the  Pentateuch,  204. 
Philoxenian  translation,  471. 
Phoenicians, 

Books  of  Kings  confirmed  by  their  records, 
286. 

mention  of  Solomon's  temple  by  their  his 
torians,  296. 
Poetry  of  the  Hebrews, 

parallelisms  in,  323. 

poetical  books,  in  the  Old  Testament,  322. 

poetry  quoted  in  the  Pentateuch,  166. 

rhythm  of,  323. 

stanzas  in,  of  same  number  of  words,  324. 
Population  of  Roman  Empire, 

in  age  of  Claudius  Caesar,  454. 

in  time  of  Augustus,  454. 
Predictions, 

by  specific  names,  382. 
Presbyter  and  bishop, 

identity  of,  in  apostolic  Church,  685. 
Priests, 

among  the  Israelites  previous  to  time  of 

Moses  and  Aaron,  88. 
Primeval  condition  of  man, 

according  to  the 
ancient  Persian  books,  223. 
Chinese  classics,  223. 
classical  poets,  222. 
Hindoo  literature,  223. 
Zendavesta,  223. 
Prophets,  Heathen, 

the  seven,  of  primitive  times,  329. 
Prophets,  Hebrew, 

characteristics  of,  361. 

chronological  table  of,  364. 


Prophets,    Hebrew,  (continued.) 
earlier,  259. 
false,  360. 

impossibility  of  blending  writings  of,  368. 
language  of,  sublime,  303. 
manner  of  inspiration  of,  29. 
predictions  without  a  parallel,  32. 
schools  of,  360. 
symbolic  actions  of,  362. 

Prophecies,  Biblical, 

communicated  in  visions  in  which  future 
events  passed  before  the  eyes  of  prophets 
as  present  realities,  381. 

exactly  fulfilled,  32. 

many  preserved,  respecting  the  genuine 
ness  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,  362. 

respecting  the  universality  of  Christ's  king 
dom  and  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  not 
yet  fulfilled,  363. 

some  dependent  upon  circumstances,  others 
unconditional  and  limitless,  363. 

spoken  of  as  being  fulfilled,  yet  in  the  fu 
ture,  381. 

Prophecy, 

furnishes  an  argument  for  the  existence  of 

God,  382. 

Hebrew,  characteristics  of,  360. 
most  brilliant  period  of,  361. 
various  views  of  its  character,  362. 

Proverbs,  Book  of, 

Agur  and  Lemuel,  mentioned  in,  unknown, 
345. 

consists  of  four  sections,  345. 

copied  out  by  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  not  col 
lected,  347. 

genuineness  of,  345. 

.Jehovistic,  345. 

one  third  of  Solomon's  proverbs  not  in  our 
collection,  345. 

peculiarities  of  language  of  Solomon's  prov 
erbs,  345. 

scepticism  as  to  its  authorship,  345. 

written  by  Solomon,  345. 

Psalms, 

authority  of  their  superscriptions,  334. 

Book  of,  divided  into  five  parts,  334. 

Book  of,  its  arrangement,  340. 

classes,  various,  of  the,  343. 

collection  in  existence  in  time  of  Heze 
kiah,  341. 

divided  by  some  critics  into  Jehovistic  and 
Elohistic  sections,  340,  342. 

doxology  at  end  of  each  division,  334. 

exhibit  Israelitish  history  and  customs,  191. 

fifty  anonymous,  335. 

how  many  were  written  by  David,  336,  337, 
338. 

imprecations  in  the,  338,  343. 

integrity  of  the,  343. 

none  written  later  that  Nehemiah,  340. 

origin  of  the  collection  of  the  Book  of,  340. 

Psalm  li,  not  necessarily  written  as  late  as 
Babylonian  captivity,  337. 

some  passages  in,  not  models  for  the  Imita 
tion  of  Christians,  355. 

some  superscriptions  obscure,  335. 

sung  in  Hebrew  worship,  341. 

superscription  "to  the  chief  musician,"- 
not  found  in  Psalms  composed  after 
Babylonian  captivity,  335. 

ten  attributed  to  the  sons  of  Korah,  339. 

twelve  attributed  to  Asaph,  338. 

Pul,  King, 

mentioned  by  Berosus,  292. 

Punic  language,  42. 
Punishment, 

methods  of,  in  Babylon,  41& 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


783 


Purim,  Feast  of, 

attests  historical  character  of  the  Book  of 
Esther,  321. 


Raguel, 

his  relationship  to  Moses,  90. 
Recorder, 

first  mentioned  in  David's  time,  288. 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 

established  independently  of  testimony  of 

the  evangelists,  500. 
Revelation, 

not  an  impossibility,  23. 
Romans,  Epistle  to  the, 

contents  of.  651. 

genuineness  of,  650. 

integrity  of,  652. 

persons  addressed  in,  649. 

time  of  its  composition,  650. 

written  at  Corinth,  650. 
Rome, 

probable  origin  of  the  Church  there,  650. 

subdued  by  the  arts  of  Greece,  458. 
Ruth,  Book  of, 

contents  of,  275. 

date  and  author  of,  276. 

events  of,  occurred  in  time  of  Judges,  275. 

its  beauty,  277. 

its  design,  276. 

rabbinical  estimate  of,  277. 

Sabbath, 

Christians  accustomed  to  meet  on  "  the  day 

of  the  sun,"  490. 
Samaria, 

capture  of,  recorded  In  Assyrian  inscrip 
tions,  293. 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  the,  174. 

disagreement  between,  and  the  Pentateuch, 

178. 
Samaritans, 

animosity  of  Jews  to,  175,  176. 
antiquity  of  the  characters  in  the  Samari 
tan  Pentateuch,  177. 
author's  interview  with  the  highpriest  of 

the  modern  sect,  176. 

dispute  of,  with  Jews  concerning  the  tem 
ple,  175. 
origin  of,  174. 

Pentateuch  used  by,  65,  174. 
temple  built  by,  under  Sanballat,  175. 
their  worship  of  Jehovah  based  on  the  Mo 
saic  law,  177. 
Samuel,  Books  of, 

alleged  contradictions  in,  examtned,  281. 

character  of  the  history  of,  280. 

date  and  authorship  of,  278. 

have  genuine  historical  stamp,  281. 

originality  of,  278. 

used  in  the  compilation  of  the  Chronicles, 

301. 

were  originally  but  one  book,  277. 
Saul  quotes  the  Pentateuch,  171. 
Sciences  and.  arts, 

in  ancient  Egypt,  101. 
Scriptures, 

atheists  unfit  to  deal  fairly  with,  23. 

human  and  divine  factors  in,  24. 

read  in  the  services  of  the  primitive  Church, 

490. 

studied  carefully  under  the  Maccabees,  412. 
Semitic  languages, 

are  simple  in  structure,  44. 
five  branches  of,  42. 
peculiar  features  of,  43. 


Sennacherib, 

the  miraculous  destruction  of  his  army  re 
ferred  to  in  Herodotus,  2o:>. 

Septuagint, 

authoritative  at  time  of  Christ,  53. 

character  of,  52. 

criticism  of,  a  difficult  task,  55. 

editions  of  Holmes  and  Parsons,  57. 

most  important  editions  of,  56. 

origin  of,  50. 

recensions  of,  in  third  century,  55. 

text  of,  in  an  unsettled  state,  53-55. 

two  remarkable  interpolations  in  the  Book 

of  Joshua,  157. 
version  in  the  early  Church,  53. 

Shiloh, 

a  sacred  place,  215. 
Siloam, 

pool  of,  575. 
Sinai,  Mount, 

a  sinsrle  summit  of  the  mountainous  group 
called  Horeb.  124. 

identification  of  Jebel  Musa  with,  246. 

identification  of   lias  Susafeh  with   "the 
Mount  of  the  Law,"  246. 

Sinaitie  peninsula, 

thoroughly  explored  by  Professor  Palmer, 

245. 
topography  of,  correctly  given  in  Exodus, 

245. 

Slavonian  version,  65. 
Solomon, 

his  dedicatory  prayer  given  In  his  exact 

words,  213. 

his  departure  from  Mosaic  regulations,  169. 
no  reason  to  doubt  his  authorship  of  the 

Song  of  Solomon,  357. 
not  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  351. 
quotes  the  Pentateuch,  198. 
undoubtedly  the  author  of  the  Proverbs 

attributed  to  him,  346. 
"  Solomon,  Book  of  Acts  of,"  286. 
Solomon,  Song  of, 
a  dialogue,  353. 
an  allegorical  poem,  354. 
analysis  of,  354. 
attributed  to  Solomon  by  ancient  tradition, 

357. 

contents  of,  353. 
design  of,  354. 

oriental  usages  present  reasons  for  an  al 
legorical  interpretation  of,  325. 
questions  concerning  the  canonicity  of,  357. 
similar  sacred  songs  sung  by  the  dervishes 

of  Egypt,  325. 

written  in  Solomon's  age,  357. 
"  Son  of  Man," 

praise  taken  from  Daniel,  422. 
Sun, 

standing  still  of,  recorded  in  Joshua,  268. 
standing  still  of,  referred  to  in  Habakkuk, 

we. 

Superscriptions, 

of  the  Gospels,  an  evidence  of  their  genu 
ineness,  530. 
of  the  Psalms,  modern  criticisms  on  their 

accuracy,  336. 
Symbolic   actions    of  the    prophets, 

395. 
Symmachus, 

his  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  54. 
Syriac  language, 
extent  of,  42,  467. 
helps  for  its  study,  47. 
literature,  richness  of,  42. 


784 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Syriae  language,  (continued.) 

little  changed  for  centuries,  140. 

translation  of   Old  and  New  Testaments 

into,  61. 
Syriae  literature, 

flourished  in  second  century,  468. 
Syriae  version, 

probable  antiquity  of,  468. 
Syro-Chaldee  language,  458. 

Tabernacle, 

difficulty  concerning  its  building,  93. 
directions  for  its  building,  133. 
located  in  Suiloh,  130. 

services  in,  similar  to  those  of  Solomon's 
temple,  198. 

Talmudie  canon,  40. 

Targums, 

of  Jerusalem,  60. 

of  Jonathan,  characteristics  and  value  of, 

59. 

of  Onkelos,  its  intelligibility,  59. 
later  editions  of ,  61. 
of  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  Pentateuch,  59. 
on  the  Hagiographa— their  various  styles, 
60. 

Temple,  Second, 

construction  of,  308. 
Temple,  Solomon's, 

its  arrangement  a  proof  of  the  existence  of 
Moses's  law,  197. 

its  building  mentioned  in  Phoenician  rec 
ords,  296. 

parallel  between  it  and  the  sanctuary  in 
Exodus,  197. 

services  similar  to  those  of  tabernacle,  198. 

singing  at,  341. 
Testament,  New, 

introduction  to,  448. 

origin  of  the  term,  33. 

references  to,  in  early  writers,  489. 

times  and  occasions  of  composition,  488. 

why  written  in  Greek,  459. 
Testament,  Old, 

Concordances  of,  57. 

Greek  translations  of,  57. 

impartiality  of  its  history,  211. 

its  purpose,  448. 

origin  of  the  term,  33. 

versions,  list  of,  50-65. 

Syriae  translation  of,  458. 
Tetrapla,  55. 

Thebaie  (or  Sahadie)  version,  477. 
Theists, 

cannot  deny  possibility  of  written  revela 
tion,  23. 
Theodotion's  version, 

of  Old  Testament,  54. 
Thessalonians,  First  Epistle  to, 

contents  of,  679. 

genuineness  of,  680. 

misconception  of  Paul's  meaning  in,  680. 

quoted  by  Fathers,  680. 

written  from  Corinth,  679. 
Thessalonians,  Second  Epistle  to, 

contents  of,  681. 

Hebraisms  in,  633. 

Hilgenf eld's  doubts  concerning,  stated  and 
considered,  681. 

probably  written  from  Corinth,  680. 

received  by  ancient  Church,  681. 
Thessaloniea, 

city  of,  678. 

date  of  Paul's  visit  to,  679. 


Thomas  of  Charkel, 

his   diligence    in    improving    the   Syriac 
Philoxenian  translation  of  the  New  Tes 
tament,  472. 
Tiberias, 

John's  neglect  to  notice  it.  an  evidence  of 

the  antiquity  of  his  Gospel,  604. 
Timothy, 

bishop  of  Ephesus,  692. 

his  personal  history,  C91. 
Timothy,  First  Epistle  to, 

allusions  in,  to  Timothy's  youth,  686. 

contents  of,  692. 

date  of  writing  of,  686,  note. 

doubts  of  genuineness  of,  €86. 

rejected  by  Marcion,  633. 

testimony  of  early  Fathers  to  its  genuine 
ness,  692. 
Timoth  v',  Second  Epistle  to, 

contents  of,  693. 

found  in  all  ancient  versions,  G94. 
Tischendorf, 

publishes  fac.-simUe  edition  of  Codex  Sinait- 
icus.  468. 

publishes  corrected  edition  of  Codex  Vat- 
icanus,  465. 

publishes  Monumenta  Sacra  Inedita,  467. 
Titus,  Epistle  to, 

contents  of,  695. 

universally  received,  696. 
Tobit,  Book  of, 

absurdities  of,  420. 
Traditions, 

of  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel,  227. 

of  the  creation,  Babylonian,  221. 

of  the  creation.  Etruscan,  221. 

of  the  creation,  Hindoo,  218. 

of  the  creation,  Persian,  221. 

of  the  deluge,  found  on  tablets  in  the  ruins 
of  Nineveh,  225. 

of  the  deluge,  universal,  224. 

of  the  fall,  223. 

of  the  golden  age,  Chinese.  223. 

of  the  golden  age,  Greek  and  Latin,  222. 

of  the  golden  age,  Hindoo,  223. 

of  the  longevity  of  the  ancients,  223,  224. 
Tregelles, 

his  rank  as  a  critical  editor,  487. 
Trent,  Council  of, 

order  the  revision  of  the  Vulgate,  63. 
Tyre, 

its  relation  to  Zidon,  266. 

prophecies  of  its  overthrow,  373. 


Uncial  letters,  463. 
Uncial  nianuseripts, 

description  of  the  most  important,  463. 

number  of,  463. 
Unity  of  God. 

revealed  by  inspiration,  31. 
Unity  of  the  Pentateuch,  95. 
Upright,  Book  of  the,  265. 

Vatican  Manuscript, 

order  of  books  in,  488. 
Versions  of  New  Testament, 

^Ethiopic,  759. 

Armenian,  761. 

Bashmuric,  759. 

Coptic,  756. 

Gothic,  760. 

Itala,  472. 

Jerome's  revision,  475. 

Jerusalem  Syriac,  472. 

Mempnitic,  757. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Versions  of  New  Testament,  (conVd 

Peshito  Syriac,  467. 

Philoxenian  translation,  471. 

Tliebaic  or  Sahidic,  758. 
Versions  of  Old  Testament, 

^Ethiopic,  64. 

Arabic,  65. 

Armenian,  64. 

Egyptian,  63. 

Georgian,  64. 

Gothic,  64. 

Greek,  54. 

Itala,  62. 

Samaritan  Pentateuch.  65. 

Septuagint,  50. 

Slavonian,  65. 

Syriac,  61. 

Targums,  58. 

Vulgate,  62. 

Visions  of  Prophets,  30. 
Vowel  points, 

not  originally  used  in  Semitic  languages, 

their  introduction  into  Hebrew,  140. 
Vulgate, 

gradually  corrupted,  62. 

made  the  standard  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 

origin  of,  62. 

various  revisions  of,  63. 

Wars  of  Jehovah,  Book  of,  166. 
Wisdom  of  Jesus  Sirach, 

Its  date,  39. 

omission  of  Daniel  from  the  list  of  distin 
guished  men  in,  405. 

VOL.  I.— 50 


785 


Wolfenbiictel  Fragments,  69. 
Writing, 

alphabetic,  99,  101. 

antiquity  of  the  art  of  alphabetical,  100. 

in  Egypt  in  the  Mosaic  age,  101. 

on  papyri,  462. 

on  parchment,  462. 

Xerxes, 

probably  identical  with  Ahasuerus,  318. 

Zechariah, 

his  personal  history,  440. 
Zechariah,  Book  of, 

contents  of,  441. 

genuineness  of  chapters  ix  to  xiv,  441. 

strong  external  evidence  of  genuineness 
of,  444. 

style  of  language,  445. 

style  of  thought,  445. 

variation  in  style  of,  accounted  for,  444. 
Zephaniah, 

his  personality,  438. 
Zephaniah,  Book  of, 

character  of  prophecy,  439. 

date  of,  439. 

Zidon, 

its  relations  to  Tyre,  260. 
Zoar,  ancient, 

its  site,  231. 

Zoroaster, 

religion  of,  419, 


INDEX  OF  AUTHOBS  QUOTED. 


i  Abarbanel, 

on  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
A  ben  Ezra, 

his  doubts  concerning  the  Mosaic  author 
ship  of  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  67. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  last  part  of  the 
Book  of  Isaiah,  366. 

Abydenus, 

his  reference  to  the  Tower  of  Babel,  227. 
Agrippa  Castor, 

refutes  Basilides,  454. 
Alexander,  (of  Princeton,) 

his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  xl  to  Ixvi,  378. 
Ambrose, 

canon  according  to,  495. 

receives  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  of 

Peter,  723,  736. 
quotes  the  Apocalypse,  760. 
Andreas, 

on  the  reception  of  the  Apocalypse  in  the 

fifth  century,  759. 
Apelles, 

quotes  John's  Gospel  as  an  authority,  95. 
Apollonius, 

quotes  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  757. 
Aristides, 

writes  in  defence  of  Christianity  to  the 

Emperor  Hadrian,  454. 
Aristobulus,  (in  Eusebius,) 

his  account  of  the  Alexandrian  version,  51. 
Arnobius, 

on  the  early  increase  of  the  Christians,  453. 
Arrian, 

says  Cyrus  was  the  first  king  honoured  by 

prostration,  418. 
Assemani, 

on  Ephraem's  knowledge  of  Greek,  758, 

note. 

on  the  views  of  Ephraem  the  Syrian  as  to 
the  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse,  761, 
note. 
Astruc, 

on  the  "document  hypothesis,"  70. 
Athanasius, 

his  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  35. 

canon  according  to,  494. 
receives  both  Epistles  of  Peter,  723,  736. 
quotes  the  Apocalypse  as  an  authority,  760. 
quotes  John's  Gospel  in  proof  of  the  divin 
ity  of  Christ,  600. 
Auberlen, 

defends  the  authenticity  of  the  Book  of 

Daniel,  398. 
acknowledges  St.  John  as  the  author  of  the 

Apocalypse,  763. 

his  theory  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Apoc 
alypse,  770. 

an  authority  on  the  Apocalypse,  770. 
Augustine, 

on  literal  inspiration,  26. 
on  the  perspicuity  of  the  Itala  version,  62. 
on  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  497. 


Augustine,  (continued.) 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  both  the 

Epistles  of  Peter,  723,  737. 
makes  no  mention  of  1  John  v,  7—745. 
receives  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of 

John,  747,  748. 
regards  the  Apocalypse  as  canonical,  761. 

Bardesanes, 

his  testimony  to  the  spread  of  Christianity, 

Barnabas,  (Epistle  of,) 

quotes  from  our  Gospels,  515. 
Basilides, 

his  exposition  of  the  New  Testament,  526. 
valuable  testimony  to  the  authenticity  of 

the  Gospels,  529.' 

quotes  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,  651. 
Basil  of  Aneyra, 

uses  John's  Gospel  as  an  authority,  601. 
Basil,  (the  Great,) 

Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  653. 
quotes  the  Apocalypse,  762. 
Baumgarten, 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Baur, 

on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  Luke's 

Gospel,  571. 
thinks  Luke's  Gospel  Pauline  in  character, 

575. 

his  attack  on  John's  Gospel,  584. 
his  estimate  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

663. 
on  the  purport  and  bearing  of  the  Pastoral 

Epistles,  U83,  684. 

on  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  at  Eome,  722. 
denies  the  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle 

of  Peter,  724. 
on  the  date  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, 

728. 

acknowledges  the  Apostle  John  as  the  au 
thor  of  the  Apocalypse,  763. 
Benary, 

on  the  meaning  of  the  number  Six  hundred 

and  sixty-six,  755. 
Berosus, 

mentions  Pul,  292. 
his  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  406. 
records  Babylonian  conquest  of  Syria,  407. 
Bertholdt, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Daniel, 

396,  398. 
his  objections  to  part  of  the  prophecy  of 

Zechariah,  441. 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447. 
his  defence  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 
acknowledges  the  Apostle  John  as  the  au 
thor  of  the  Apocalypse,  763. 
Beza, 

his  Greek  Testament  contains  1  John  v,  7— 

745. 
Bleek, 

on  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  version  by 
Hellenistic  Jews,  53. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


787 


Bleek,  (continued.) 

on  the  antiquity  of  the  Vatican  and  Alex 
andrian  Codices,  55. 

on  the  compilation  of  the  Pentateuch,  72. 

on  supposed  inconsistencies  in  Genesis, 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  86-92. 

on  the  directions  to  the  Israelites  concern 
ing  their  future  king,  168. 

on  the  Samaritan  religion,  177. 

on  the  early  existence  of  the  Pentateuch, 
211,  212. 

on  the  erection  of  twelve  stones  in  the 
Jordan,  2(53. 

on  supposed  interpolations  in  Joshua,  263. 

admits  that  the  last  chapters  of  Judges  were 
composed  at  an  early  date,  271. 

refers  Book  of  Judges  to  the  time  of  the 
earlier  kings,  274. 

on  the  forms  of  language  in  the  Book  of 
Ruth,  276. 

on  the  value  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  288. 

on  the  materials  of  the  Books  of  Chron 
icles,  301. 

on  the  relation  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles 
to  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
302. 

thinks  the  statements  of  Chronicles  some 
times  inexact,  304. 

his  remarks  on  the  composition  of  the  Book 
of  Ezra,  307. 

on  supposed  historical  blunders  in  Ezra, 
309. 

on  the  alleged  incredibility  of  Esther's  his 
tory,  319. 

on  the  misrepresentations  regarding  Es 
ther,  320. 

on  the  historical  character  of  the  Book  of 
Esther,  320. 

on  the  historical  basis  of  fact  in  the  Book 
of  Esther,  321. 

on  Job's  prologue  and  epilogue,  327. 

on  the  habit  of  Hebrew  poets  to  give  names 
to  their  songs,  336. 

Psalms  rejected  by,  as  not  belonging  to 
David,  336. 

thinks  certain  Psalms  attributed  to  David 
probably  not  written  by  him,  337. 

on  Psalm  ii,  338. 

holds  Asaph  not  to  be  the  author  of  any 
Psalms,  338. 

considers  Moses  the  author  of  Psalm  xc, 
339. 

thinks  no  Psalm  should  be  placed  at  a  later 
date  than  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  340. 

Infers  that  the  collection  of  Psalms  was 
formed  at  different  times,  341. 

thinks  that  some  of  the  Psalms  were  revised 
by  later  poets,  343. 

admits  that  a  large  portion  of  the  Proverbs 
are  undoubtedly  Solomon's,  346. 

refers  Ecclesiastes  to  the  Persian  or  Greek 
period,  352. 

disapproves  of  Delitzsch's  divisions  of  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  354. 

denies  an  allegorical  meaning  in  the  Song 
of  Solomon,  355. 

does  not  believe  Solomon  to  be  the  author 
of  the  Song  of  Solomon,  356. 

on  the  authorship  of  Lamentations,  360. 

on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  Lamenta 
tions,  360. 

on  the  genuineness  of  various  disputed 
sections  of  Isaiah.  364-378. 

attacks  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 

on  the  inferences  deducible  from  Ezekiel's 
mention  of  Daniel,  399. 

on  the  omission  of  Ezra  by  Jesus  Sirach, 
405. 

on  the  "plague  of  locusts,"  in  the  proph 
ecy  of  Joel  425. 

on  character  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  427. 


Bleek,  (continued.) 

on  the  prophecy  of  Amos,  428. 

on  the  date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy,  430. 

on  the  prophecy  of  Jonah,  431. 

on  the  date  of  Habakkuk's  prophecy,  438. 

on  the  date  of  Zephaniah's  prophecy,  429. 

his  objections  to  part  of  prophecy  of  Zecl»- 
ariab,  441,  442. 

on  the  date  of  Zechariah's  prophecy,  443. 

on  allusions  in  Zech.  xi,  8—444. 

on  Zech.  xii-xiv,  444. 

thinks  Malachi  the  real  name  of  the  propU- 
et  so-called,  446. 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447. 

holds  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  to  have  been 
originally  written  in  Greek,  542. 

on  the  date  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  545. 

thinks  Mark  unquestionably  the  author  of 
the  Gospel  of  Mark,  557. 

on  the  date  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  558. 

holds  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  originally 
appeared  in  Rome,  559. 

on  the  question,  Was  Timothy  Paul's  com 
panion  in  travel t  5C6. 

on  the  date  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  57T. 

on  the  genuineness  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 

believes  John  xxi  to  be  a  late  addition,  625. 

on  the  value  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels,  630. 

on  the  persons  addressed  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  698. 

his  objections  to  the  Pauline  authorship  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  703. 

on  date  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  705. 

thinks  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  was 
not  an  apostle,  709. 

defends  the  Epistle  of  James,  714. 

refers  the  composition  of  James'  Epistle  to 
A.D.  63,  64—716. 

on  the  crucifixion  of  Peter  at  Rome,  722. 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter,  732. 

rejects  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  739. 

acknowledges  the  'genuineness  of  the  Sec 
ond  and  Third  Epistles  of  John,  747,  743. 

on  the  meaning  of  the  mystical  number 
Six  hundred  and  sixty-six,  755. 

on  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  756. 

does  not  regard  John  as  the  author  of  the 
Apocalypse,  762. 

his  theory  of  the  meaning  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  770. 

Bo'hmer, 

accepts  the  Apostle  John  as  the  author  of 
the  Apocalypse,  763. 

Bolingbroke, 

attacks  the  Mosaic  writings,  68. 
of  the  great  length  of  human  life  in  the 
early  ages,  224. 

Bonomi, 

reproduces  a  Ninevite  picture  of  Nlmrod, 

OO*7 

on  the  musical  instruments  of  the  Nine- 
vites,  404. 

Brandis, 

on  the  contact  of  the  Greeks  with  the  As 
syrians,  403. 

Bred  en  k  amp, 

opposes  the  new  theory  of  Graf,  77. 
Bretschneider, 

makes  a  systematic  attack  on  the  Gospel  of 

John,  583. 
Buffon, 

on  the  prolonged  life  of  the  patriarchs,  224. 
Bunsen, 

attacks  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 

on  Ezekiel's  mention  of  Daniel,  399. 

on  Jonah's  thanksgiving  hymn,  431. 


788 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


Bun  sen,  (continued.) 

on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  426. 
objects  to  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Zechari- 
ah,  441. 

Caius, 

on  the  graves  of  Peter  and  Paul,  648,  722. 

attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus,  759. 
Callistus  of  Rome, 

quotes  John's  Gospel  as  an  authority,  595. 
"  Calmberg, 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Calvin, 

on  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scripture,  27 
Carlstadt, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  67. 
Carpzov, 

defends  the  genuineness  of  the  Penta 
teuch,  68. 

on  ihe  composition  of  the  Book  of  Job,  326. 
Caspar!, 

his  criticism  on  Isaiah  xxxiv,  xxxv,  375. 

on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 
Cassiodorus, 

on  the  taxing  under  Cyrenius  mentioned  in 

Luke's  Gospel,  576. 
Cerinthus, 

his  heretical  doctrines,  742. 
Chrysostom, 

on  disagreements  of  the  evangelists,  26. 

on  the  inspiration  of  St.  John,  26. 

canon  according  to,  497,  723. 

his  strange  remark  concerning  the  Book  of 
Acts,  644. 

rejects  Second  Peter,  737. 

omits  the  Apocalypse  from  his  canon,  761. 
Cicero, 

on  the  diffusion  of  the  Greek  language,  457. 
Clement  of  Alexandria, 

on  the  equal  inspiration  of  both  Testa 
ments,  25. 

his  statement  regarding  the  Gospels,  502, 
503. 

his  notice  of  the  Apostle  John,  582. 

his  testimony  to  John's  Gospel,  590. 

quotes  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  651. 

quotes  the  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Co 
rinthians,  656. 

quotes  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  as  his  only 
Epistle,  723,  737. 

quotes  Jude's  Epistle,  739. 

alludes  to  the  Second  Epistle  of  John,  746. 

on  John's  return  from  Patmos,  751. 

relates  anecdotes  concerning  Saint  John, 

fOwt 

regards  the  Apostle  John  as  the  author  of 

the  Apocalypse,  757. 
Clement  of  Rome, 

his  quotations  from  the  Gospels,  513. 

his  reference  to  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Paul, 
649. 

refers  to  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthi 
ans,  656. 

his  notice  of  Peter,  720,  731. 
Colenso, 

his  estimate  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  71. 

on  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Moabite  Stone, 

his  objections  to  the  accounts  of  the  tent- 
life  of  the  Israelites,  249. 

on  the  size  of  the  Israelitish  camp.  251. 

his  objections  to  miracles,  252. 
Collins,  Anthony, 

attacks  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  397. 


Corrodi, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  69. 

his  attack  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
Cosmas  Indieopleustes, 

on  the  canonicity  of  the  three  Cathollo 
Epistles,  737,  738. 

Council  of  Aneyra, 

quotes  John's  Gospel,  596. 
Council  of  Seleucia, 

quotes  John  xiv,  26—596. 
Council  of  Trent, 

makes  the  Vulgate  the  standard  version  of 
the  Bible,  63. 

Cowper, 

on  Codex  Alexandrinus,  464. 
Credner, 

his  testimony  to  John's  Gospel,  584. 

on  the  date  of  Jude's  Epistle,  741. 
Crome, 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Cureton, 

discovers  ancient  recension  of  Gospels  In 
Syriac,  471. 

on  Peshito  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
471. 

his  translation  of  Melito's  oration,  quoted, 

734. 
Curtius, 

on  the  respect  of  the  Persians  for  their 

kings,  410. 
Cyprian  of  Carthage, 

regards  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  as  au 
thentic,  723. 

his  views  of  Second  Peter,  737. 

quoted  the  Apocalypse,  758. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria, 

attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  John,  761. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 

on  the  number  of  the  canonical  books,  35. 

the  canon  according  to,  494. 

his  views  of  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  Jude, 
700,  739. 

on  John's  Epistles,  748. 

Dana, 

on  the  order  of  the  creation,  220. 
David  Kimchi, 

on  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  369. 
Davidson, 

on  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  originals 
of  the  Pentateuch,  72. 

admits  that  there  are  no  positive  contra 
dictions  in  the  Pentateuch,  129. 

on  the  phrase,  "Moses,  the  servant  of  Je 
hovah,"  262. 

alleges  difference  in  style  between  the  first 
and  second  parts  of  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
263. 

rejects  the  account  of  the  falling  of  the 
walls  of  Jericho,  268. 

regards  part  of  Joshua  as  mythical,  263. 

on  the  date  of  composition  of  the  Book  of 
Judges,  274. 

concedes  that  the  Book  of  Judges  bears  the 
impress  of  historical  truth,  275. 

on  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Books  of 
Samuel,  280. 

on  the  contradictions  in  First  Samuel,  285. 

on  contradictions  in  list  of  Saul's  sons,  285. 

on  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Books  of 
Kings,  289. 

on  the  date  of  composition  of  the  Books  of 
Samuel,  299. 

admits  the  general  credibility  of  Chron 
icles,  304. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


rso 


Davidson,  (continued.) 

his  suspicion   of    inaccuracy  in  parts  of 

Chronicles,  304. 
on  the  prologue  and  epilogue  in  the  Book 

of  Job,  327. 
thinks  that  the  Davidic  authority  of  most 

or  the  Psalms  should  be  assumed,  337. 
thinks  Asaph  probably  the  author  of  Psalms 

I  and  Ixxiii,  338. 

on  the  authorship  of  Solomon's  Son?,  350. 
his  criticism  on  Jer.  xxvii,  xxviii,  xxix,  1, 

and  li,  387,  388,  390. 
his  attack  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
on  the  prophecy  of  Jonah,  432. 
on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Malachi,  447. 

De  Groot, 

on  the  Logos  in  John's  Gospel,  616. 

Delitzseh, 

his  view  of  Song  of  Solomon,  354. 
rejects  the  allegorical  meaning  of  Solo 
mon's  Song,  355. 
his  criticisms  on  Isa.  xxxiv,  xxxv,  xxxviii, 

and  xl-lxvi,  375-378. 
defends  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Obadiah,  430. 
considers  Jonah  a  type  of  Christ,  432. 
his  defence  of  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Demosthenes, 

uses  expressions  similar  to  those  in  the 

Gospels,  250. 
De  Wette, 

rejects  the  accepted  account  of  the  origin 

of  the  Septuagint.  52. 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  70, 121. 
on  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  177. 
on  miracles,  251. 

on  the  contradictions  in  the  Books  of  Josh 
ua  and  Judges,  260. 
on  the  date  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  265. 
admits  the   genuineness  of   the  Book  of 

Judges,  274. 
on  alleged  inconsistencies  in  the  Books  of 

Samuel,  281. 

maintains  that  the  writer  of  the  Books  of 
Chronicles  must  have  been  familiar  with 
earlier  writings,  302. 

his  attack  on  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  303. 
modified   his    earlier    views    concerning 

Chronicles,  303. 
on  the  discourses  of  Elihtt  in  the  Book  of 

Job,  327. 
thinks  many  anonymous  Psalms  may  have 

been  written  by  David,  338. 
rejects  the  period  of  the  Maccabees  as  be 
ing  the  date  of  any  Psalms,  340. 
thinks  the  first  collection  of  Proverbs  not 

made  by  Solomon,  346. 
refers  Ecclesiastes  to  the  Persian  or  Greek 

period,  352. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  Lamentations  o 

Jeremiah,  359. 

on  the  genuineness  of  the  first  twelve  chap 
ters  of  Isaiah,  370. 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  Isa.  xiv 
28-32,  *vii,  1-11,  xviii,  xxiv,  xxvii,  3,2 
373 
bis   criticisms   on  Isa.    xiv-xxvii,    xxxiv 

xxxv,  and  xl-lxvi,  374-378. 
his  criticisms  on  Jer.  x,  1-16,  xxvii-xxix 

xlvii,  386-389. 

on  Ezekiel's  chief  peculiarity,  394 
his  attack  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
admits   that  Greek   musical   instrument 
could  be  known  to  the  Babylonians,  404. 
on  the  Book  of  Jonah,  431. 
on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Habakkuk 

on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Zephaniah 
439. 


De  Wette,  (continued.') 

defends  Zechariah  ix-xiv,  441. 

on  the  character  of  the  prophecy  of  Mala 
chi,  447. 

thinks  Matthew's  Gospel  had  a  Greek  orig 
inal,  542. 

on  the  date  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  545. 

says  that  Matthew  disregards  the  order  ol 
time  in  his  narrative,  549. 

considers  Mark  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  Desiring  his  name,  557. 

thinks  Mark's  Gospel  originally  appeared 
in  Rome,  559. 

on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  571. 

his  defence  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 

doubts  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians,  668. 

considers  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians  to  be  beyond  doubt,  074. 

admits  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians,  670. 

his  difficulties  in  regard  to  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  687. 

considers  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle 
to  Philemon  not  to  be  doubted,  097. 

on  the  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  James 
Epistle  by  the  Reformers,  714. 

doubts  the  tradition  of  Peter's  martyrdom 
in  Rome,  722. 

his  doubts  concerning  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter,  725. 

on  the  date  and  composition  of  First  Peter, 
728,  732. 

attributes  Jude's  Epistle  to  Jude  the  broth 
er  of  the  Lord,  740. 

on  the  "  elect  day,"  710. 

on  the  genuineness  of  Third  John,  74R. 

on  the  position  of  the  Reformers  as  to  the 

authorship  of  the  Apocalypse,  762. 
Didymus, 

canon  according  to,  495. 

regards  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  as  au 
thentic,  723. 

quotes  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  and 
Jude,  737,  739. 

quotes  the  Apocalypse  as  an  authority,  7W>. 
Diodorus  Siculus, 

on  the  worship  of  Apis,  199. 
Dion  Cassius, 

on  the  taxing  under  Cyrenius  mentioned 

in  Luke's  Gospel,  576. 
Dionysius, 

on  the  life  and  death  of  Peter  and  Paul, 

on  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John, 

747. 

opposes  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  759. 
Doderlein, 

on  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah,  441. 
Douglass,  (Professor,) 

tries  to  prove  that  Ecclesiastes  were  written 
by  Solomon,  353. 

Ebrard, 

on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  5,1 

declares  John  to  be  the  author  of  the  Apoo- 

onatheSprophecies  of  the  Apocalypse,  770. 
Eekermann, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  ,0. 
Eichhorn, 

defends  the   genuineness   of   the   Penta 
teuch,  68. 

on  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents,  ,1. 

on  the  division  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  into 
fragments,  367. 

on  the  authenticity  of  Jer.  J,  li,  o90. 


730 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


Eielihorn,  (continued.) 

his  theory  regarding  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
396,  398. 

on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 

objects  to  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Zecha- 
riah,  441. 

on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Malachi,  447. 

defends  the  Gospel  of  John,  584. 

on  the  time  of  the  composition  of  First 
Peter,  728. 

declares  John  to  be  the  author  of  the  Apoc 
alypse,  763. 
Ephraem  the  Syrian, 

quotes  the  Apocalypse,  758. 
Epiphanius, 

his  catalogue  of  the  canonical  books,  35. 

New  Testament  canon  according  to,  497. 

his  remarks  on  the  Ebionite  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  535. 

bis  views  on  Peter's  Epistles,  736. 

receives  the  Second  Epistle  of  John,  747. 

on  the  date  of  John's  return  from  Patmos, 
753. 

ascribes  the  Apocalypse  to  John  the  Evan 
gelist,  760. 

Erasmus, 

denies  the  genuineness  of  Second  Peter, 
737. 

bis  reasons  for  inserting  in  his  Greek  Tes 
tament  First  John  v,  7—745. 

doubts  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  762. 

Eusebius, 

records  Melito's  catalogues  of  the  canoni 
cal  books,  33. 

on  Hegesippus's  acquaintance  with  a 
Syriac  version  of  Matthew,  468. 

New  Testament  canon  according  to,  493. 

makes  mention  of  a  copy  of  Matthew's 
Gospel  written  in  Hebrew,  534. 

on  the  date  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  545. 

on  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 
555. 

bis  statements  regarding  Luke,  563. 

says  Paul  was  beheaded  by  Nero,  648. 

regards  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  as  au 
thentic,  723. 

on  Clement's  views  of  the  Catholic  Epistles, 

on  Second  Peter,  736. 

places  Jude  among  the  disputed  books,  739. 

on  the  standing  of  John's  Epistles,  747. 

on  John's  banishment  to  Patmos,  743. 

quotes  Theophilus,  Melito,  and  other  early 
Christian  writers,  on  the  Apocalypse  of 
John,  757. 

doubts  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  760. 
Evanson, 

his  attack  on  John's  Gospel,  583. 
Ewald, 

traces  three  periods  of  biblical  Hebrew,  44. 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  71. 

on  the  remarkable  increase  of  the  Israel 
ites  in  Egypt,  242. 

on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Books 
of  Samuel,  299. 

attributes  eleven  Psalms  to  David,  337. 

refers  Ecclesiastes  to  the  period  of  Persian 
rule,  352. 

his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  xxxiv,  xxxv,  341. 

on  the  style  of  Isaiah,  379. 

his  criticism  on  Isaiah  Ivi,  9-lvii,  11—479. 

bis  criticism  on  Jeremiah  1,  li,  390. 

his  attack  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 

on  Ezekiel's  mention  of  Daniel,  399. 

on  the  character  of  the  prophecy  of  Amos, 


Ewald,  (continued.') 

his  objections  to  part  of  the  prophecy  of 
Zechariah,  441. 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447. 

on  the  date  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  545. 

bis  theory  concerning  Mark's  Gospel,  557. 

on  the  similarity  of  language  in  Luke's 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  570. 

on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  571. 

his  defence  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 

on  the  date  of  First  Peter,  728. 

credits  Silvanus  with  the  composition  of 
First  Peter,  732. 

rejects  Second  Peter,  736. 

on  the  date  of  Jude's  Epistle,  741. 

on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Apoc 
alypse,  756. 

believes  that  John  the  presbyter  wrote  the 
Apocalypse,  763. 

regards  the  Apocalypse  as  not  inspired,  770. 

Faeundus, 

condemns  First  John  v,  7—745. 
Firmilian, 

quotes  the  Gospel  of  John,  595. 
Fisher, 

defence  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Fritzsehe, 

on  the  number  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast, 
755. 

Fulda, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  69. 

Furst, 

on  the  authorship  and  revision  of  the  Pen 
tateuch,  72. 
renders  the  "  Book  of  Jashur  "  the  "  Book 

of  the  Israelites,"  265. 
his  remarks  on  Ezra,  298. 
considers  the  Purim  festival  a  Persian  feast, 

321. 
thinks  the  Song  of  Solomon  symbolical  or 

allegorical,  354. 

on  the  traditional  history  of  Ezekiel,  395. 
on  Greek  words  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  402. 
on  the  time  of  the  closing  of  the  Hebrew 

canon,  412. 

on  the  Book  of  Jonah,  433. 
on  the  birthplace  of  the  Prophet  Nahum, 

436. 
on  the  disputed  chapters  of  the  prophecy 

of  Zechariah,  445. 

Gelasius, 

on  the  reception  of  John's  Gospel  by  the 

Nicene  Council,  595. 
George, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 
Georgius  of  Laodieea, 

quotes  John's  Gospel,  596. 
Gesenius, 

his  definition  of  NS33,  29. 

on  the  golden  and  silver  ages  in  biblical 
Hebrew,  44. 

on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 

bis  remarks  on  the  word  "generation," 
239. 

on  the  Book  of  Jashur,  or,  the  Upright, 
265. 

on  Cambyses  and  Smerdis,  310. 

on  the  location  of  Uz,  333. 

on  the  phrase,  "  to  the  chief  musician,"  335. 

thinks  that  none  of  the  Psalms  were  writ 
ten  in  the  Maccabean  age,  340. 

on  Koppe's  criticism  of  Isaiah,  366. 

on  the  order  of  the  prophets,  369. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


791 


Gesenius,  (continued.) 

on  the  genuineness  of  the  first  twelve  chap 
ters  of  Isaiah,  370. 

refers  Isaiah  ii-iv  to  reign  of  Ahaz,  370. 

on  the  genuineness  of  Isaiah  xiv,  24-32; 
xv,  xvi,  xvii,  1-11-372,  373. 

his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  xiv-xxvii,  xxviii- 
xxxiii,  xxxiv,  xxxv,  xxxviii,  xl-lxvi, 
372-380. 

on  the  unity  of  tone  maintained  by  Eze- 
kiel,  394. 

on  Greek  words  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  402. 

his  remarks  on  Darius  the  Mede,  408. 

on  the  "  plague  of  locusts  "  in  the  prophecy 
of  Joel,  420. 

on  Zechariah  xi,  8-443. 

on  the  "  eye,"  used  as  a  symbol  in  Zech 
ariah  iv,  10,  ix,  8—444. 

on  the  name  "  Malachi,"  445. 
Gibbon, 

on  the  sublimity  of  Job,  333. 

on  the  population  of  the  Roman  empire, 
454. 

on  the  subjugation  of  Rome  by  the  arts  of 
Greece,  458. 

Gieseler, 

on  Origen's  views  of  inspiration,  26. 

on  the  Serpent  Brethren,  529. 

concedes  the  truth  of  the  tradition  of  the 
martyrdom  of  Peter  at  Rome,  722. 

on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Apoc 
alypse,  756. 

favours  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  703. 
Goethe, 

on  the  Book  of  Ruth,  277. 

Graf, 

opponents  of  the  theory  of,  77. 

Gramberg, 

denies  all  credibility  to  the  Booksof  Chron 
icles,  303. 

on  Jeremiah  1,  li,  390. 
regards  the  Book  of  Jonah  as  a  poetical 

myth,  432. 

Green,  (Professor,) 
replies  to  Colenso,  71. 
refutes  Robertson  Smith,  77. 

Gregory  Nazianzen, 

his  catalogue  of  canonical  books,  35. 

New  Testament  canon  according  to,  495. 

receives  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  as  genu 
ine,  723. 

receives  Peter's  Second  Epistle,  but  ex 
presses  doubts,  736. 

receives  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  739. 

places  the  Third  Epistle  of  John  among  the 
canonical  books,  748. 

omits  the  Apocalypse  from  his  canon,  761. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa, 

ascribes  the  Apocalypse  to  Saint  John,  760 
Grotius, 

on  the  date  of  Ecclesiastes,  351. 

rejects  Ecclesiastes  as  a  writing  of  Solo 
mon,  351. 

rejects  Peter's  Second  Epistle,  737. 

rejects  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  740. 
Guerieke, 

attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle 
John,  763. 

Hagenbach, 

on  the  early  Christian  view  of  inspiration 

quotes  Origin  on  inspiration,  26. 
quotes  Theodore  on  inspiration,  27. 


Haller, 

on  the  ages  of  the  antediluvians,  223. 

Hartmann, 

on  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 
•iase, 

defends  the  apostolic  origin  of  John's  Gos 
pel  and  the  Apocalypse,  584. 

Hasse,  J.  G., 

his  contradictory  views  regarding  the  Mo 
saic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  68. 

Eiasselquist, 

on  the  serpent-charmers  of  Egypt,  236. 

Hauff, 

his  defence  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 

Haverniek, 

on  Eichhorn's  criticisms,  68. 

attributes  the  authorship  of  the  Books  of 

Kings  to  Jeremiah,  289. 
vigorously  defends  the  Books  of  Chronicles, 

303. 

criticises  Isaiah  xl-lxvi,  378. 
defends  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 
on  the  date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy,  430. 
defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
defends  Zechariah  ix-xiv,  441. 
on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447. 

Heeren, 

on  the  reverence  felt  by  t'ue  Asiatics  for 

their  kings,  410. 
Hegesippus, 

refers  to  the  reading  of  the  Gospels  in  the 
service  of  the  primitive  Church,  509. 

on  the  examination  of  the  grandchildren 
of  Jude,  the  brother  of  Christ,  by  Domi- 
tian,  738. 
Hemsen, 

defends  John  Gospel,  584. 
Hengstenberg, 

on  the  value  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
179. 

refers  Ecclesiastes  to  the  age  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  351. 

his  criticism  on  Isaiah  xl-lxvi,  378. 

defends  the  Book  of  Daniel.  388. 

on  alleged  historical  errors  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  406. 

on  the  "  plague  of  locusts  "  mentioned  in 
Joel's  prophecy,  425. 

on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 

on  the  date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy,  430. 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 

defends  the  authenticity  of  Zechariah  ix- 
xiv,  441. 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  449. 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 

on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Apoc 
alypse,  756. 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse,  763, 
Heraeleon, 

his  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Joan, 


Herbst, 

on  the  revision  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 

defends  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
Herder, 

regards  the  Book  of  Jonah  as  a  fiction,  432. 
Hernias,  the   Pastor, 

ignores  Second  Peter,  735. 
Herodotus, 

on  Cyrus  the  Great,  254. 

refers  to  the  great  defeat  of  Sennacherib, 
295. 

mentions  several  Egyptian  kings  who  were 
Ethiopians,  304. 


792 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


Herodotus,  (continued.) 

records  the  subjugation  of  Egypt  by  Xerxes, 
319. 

on  Babylonian  dress,  419. 

on  the  capture  of  Nineveh,  434. 
Hesiod, 

on  the  Golden  Age,  223. 
Hess, 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Heydenreich, 

defends  the  genuineness  of  Second  Peter, 

737. 
Hilary, 

his  catalogue  of  sacred  Scriptures,  35. 

receives  both  Epistles  of  Peter,  723,  736. 
Hilgenfeld, 

on  the  date  of  Joel's  prophecy,  426. 

his  acknowledgment  respecting  Justin 
Martyr,  508. 

on  the  Clementine  Homilies,  522. 

on  the  Greek  original  of  Matthew's  Gospel, 

on  alleged  additions  to  Matthew's  Gospel, 

543. 

on  the  date  of  Mark's  Gospel,  558. 
thinks  Mark's  Gospel  originally  appeared 

in  Rome,  559. 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles,  568. 
denies  the  genuineness  of  John's  Gospel, 

584. 
on  the  language  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 

sians,  670. 
on  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 

680. 
on  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 

682. 
on  references  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  to 

existing  heresies,  681. 
on  the  origin  of  James  ii,  12—714. 
on  the  bearing  of  James  ii,  6,  7 ;  v,  6 — 714. 
on  the  judicial  punishment  of  the  early 

Christians,  715. 
accepts  the  tradition  of  Peter's  martyrdom 

at  Rome,  722. 

denies  the  genuineness  of  First  Peter,  724. 
on  the  persecution  of  the  early  Christians, 

on  the  date  and  authorship  of  First  Peter, 

730. 

rejects  Second  Peter,  737. 
thinks  there  are  traces  of  Gnosticism  in 

First  John,  742. 

on  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  756. 
Hippolytus, 

on  the  Samaritan  Scriptures,  175. 
receives  John's  Gospel,  595. 
on  the  doctrines  of  Cerinthus,  742. 
attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  John,  758. 
Hitzig, 

attributes  to  David  fourteen  psalms,  337. 
refers  some  psalms  to  the  period  of  the 

Maccabees,  340. 

his  criticism  on  Isaiah  xl-lxvi,  378. 
his  criticism  on  Jeremiah  xxvii,  1,  and  Ii, 

390. 

attacks  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
objects  to  portions  of  Zechariah's  prophecy, 

on  the  number  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast,  755. 
Hobbes, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  67. 
Hoffman, 

on  the  date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy,  432. 
Holland, 

his  conjecture  as  to  the  mode  of  supply 
ing  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  with  water, 
345. 


Holtzmann, 

on  the  identity  of  authorship  of  Luke's 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  570. 

Hug, 

on  date  of  Codex  Vaticanus,  4G5. 

believes  that  Matthew's  Gospel  was  origi 
nally  written  in  Greek,  542. 

on  the  date  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  545. 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 

believes  the  allusions  in  First  Peter  to  the 
sufferings  of  Christians  to  refer  to  their 
persecution  under  Nero,  728. 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  First  Pe 
ter,  732. 

defends  the  genuineness  of  Second  Peter, 
737. 

attempts  to  show  that  the  Syriac  version 
originally  contained  the  Apocalypse,  758. 

defends  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  763. 

Humboldt, 

on  the  Book  of  Ruth,  277. 
Huther, 

rejects  Second  Peter,  737. 


Ignatius, 

testimony  of  his  Epistles  to  the  Gospels, 
516. 

Ilgen, 

declares  Genesis  to  be  a  compilation,  71. 
Irenaeus, 

on  the  divine  origin  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

25. 

on  Paul's  frequent  use  of  hyperbaton,  25. 
on  the  early  spread  of  the  Gospel,  452. 
canon  according  to,  493. 
testifies  in  favour  of  the  authenticity  of  the 

Gospels,  503. 
says  that  Matthew's  Gospel  was  originally 

written  in  Hebrew,  534. 
on  the  date  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  544. 
on  the  date  of  Mark's  Gospel,  557. 
on  the  personal  history  of  Luke,  563. 
on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  570. 
his  testimony  respecting  the  Apostle  John, 

580. 
his  testimony  respecting  John's  Gospel, 

587. 

quotes  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  651. 
acknowledges  the  authenticity  of  the  Sec 
ond  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians, 

659. 
declares  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  to 

have  been  written  by  Paul,  062. 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  694. 
asserts  that  Peter  and  Paul  preached  the 

Gospel  in  Rome,  720. 
quotes  the  First  Epistle  to  Peter,  723,  731. 
refutes  the  Valentinians,  742. 
quotes   Second   John   11  as  having  been 

written  by  the  Apostle  John,  746. 
on  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  751. 
suggests  names,  the  letters  of  which  will 

make  the  number  Six  hundred  and  sixty- 
six,  755. 
attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle 

John,  757,  759. 
Isaac  ben  Salomo, 

denies  the  antiquity  of  Gen.  xxxvi,  31—66. 


Jahn, 

on  Isaiah  xl-lxvi,  378. 

regards  the  Book  of  Jonah  as  a  parable 

432. 
defends  the  genuineness  of  Zech.  ix-xiv, 

441. 


INDEX  OP  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


793 


Jerome, 

acknowledges  the  human  element  In  in 
spiration,  27. 

his  catalogue  of  the  canonical  books,  36. 
on  the  conflicting  texts  of  the  Septuagint, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  66. 
treats  Ecclesiastes  as  the  work  of  Solomon, 

351. 
in  his  canon  makes  of  the  twelve  minor 

prophets  one  book,  423. 
on  the  birthplace  of  the  Prophet  Nahum, 

436. 

on  the  Prophet  Malachi,  446. 
on  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  497,  498. 
on  the  Hebrew  origin  of  Matthew's  Gospel, 

o34. 

on  the  Ebionites,  537. 
his  testimony  to  John's  Gospel,  590. 
on  the  beheading  of  Paul  at  Rome,  648. 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  702. 
on  the  episcopacy  and  death  of  Peter  at 

Rome,  721. 

on  Peter's  Epistles,  723,  737. 
receives  Jude's  Epistle,  739. 
condemns  First  John  v,  7,  by  silence,  745. 
attributes  Second  and  Third  John  to  the 

Presbyter  John,  746. 
states  that  John  was  banished  to  Patmos 

by  Domitian,  753. 
attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle 

John,  761. 

Jesus,  Son  of  Siraeh, 

his  catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  canon.  In  the 

prologue  of  the  Greek  translation,  39. 
omits  Daniel  from  his  list  of  great  men, 

405. 

Jonathan  ben  Uzziel, 

Messianic  allusions  in  his  Targum,  59. 
Josephus, 

his  catalogue  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip 
tures,  37. 

his  account  of  the  Alexandrian  version,  51. 

on  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the   Penta 
teuch,  66. 

on  the  Samaritans,  175. 

on  the  great  age  of  the  ancients,  224. 

on  the  date  of  the  building  of  Solomon's 
Temple,  296. 

credits  Esther's  history,  318. 

supposes  Ahasuerus  to  be  Artaxerxes,  318. 

on  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  367. 

on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  401. 

counts  the  twelve  minor  prophets  as  one 
book,  423. 

on  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 

on  Greek  cities,  458. 

his  account  of  Herod's  death,  638. 
Jovius  Maximinus  Augustus, 

his  ^testimony  to  the  number  of  Christians, 

Justin  Martyr, 

on  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  25. 
on  the  early  increase  of  the  Christians, 

451. 

his  testimony  for  the  four  Gospels,  505. 
quotes  John's  Gospel,  591. 
attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle 

John,  757,  759. 

Juvenal, 

asserts  that  the  Greek  was  the  prevailing 
language  of  his  time,  457. 

Kamphausen, 

his  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 
72. 


Kamphausen,  (continued.) 

considers  the  Book  of  Esther  to  be  a  skil 
ful  romance,  321. 

believes  Ecclesiastes  to  have  been  written  - 

in  the  third  century  B.  C.,  352. 
Keil, 

on  the  affinity  of  the  language  of  Chroni 
cles  and  that  of  Ezra,  299. 

on  the  historical  narratives  in  Chronicles 
and  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  301. 

on  the  hostility  to  the  Jews  in  the  time  of 
Xerxes,  310. 

attributes  seven  psalms  to  Asaph,  338. 

believes  the  Psalms  to  have  been  collected 
together  at  one  time  by  one  man,  340. 

on  the  arrangement  of  the  Psalms,  342. 

assigns  to  Solomon  Proverbs  i-xxix,  348. 

refers  Ecclesiastes  to  the  age  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  352. 

on  the  Song  of  Solomon,  355. 

refers  Isaiah  ii-iv  to  the  reign  of  Jotham, 
370. 

his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  xxxiv,  xxxv,  and 
xxxviii,  375. 

on  the  character  of  Ezekiel,  395. 

in  defence  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 

on  the  style  of  Hosea,  425. 

on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 

on  the  date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy,  430. 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah  as  a  true  his 
tory,  432. 

on  the  style  of  Micah,  435. 

defends  Zechariah  ix-xiv,  441. 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447. 

Keim, 

on  the  date  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  545. 

Kleinert, 

on  Isaiah  xl-lxvi,  344. 

on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 

Klosterman, 

on  the  identity  of  authorship  of   Luke's 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  570. 
Knobel, 

maintains  the   genuineness  of   the   flrst 

twelve  chapters  of  Isaiah,  370. 
acknowledges  the  genuineness  of   Isaiah 

xiv,  24-32—372. 
refers  Isaiah  xv,  xvi,  to  an  older  prophet, 

372. 
his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  xiv-xxvii,  xxxiv, 

xxxv,  and  xxxviii,  374,  375. 
on  Jeremiah  1,  II,  390. 
disputes  the   genuineness  of  portions  of 

Zechariah,  441. 
Koppe, 

attacks  the  genuineness  of  Isaiah's  proph 
ecy,  366. 
Koran,  The, 

asserts  its  own  verbal  inspiration,  118. 
Koster, 

maintains  the   genuineness  of  Zechariah 

ix-xiv,  441. 
Kuenen, 

on  the  ten  commandments,  75. 

divides  priestly  laws  into  three  groups,  75. 

refuted  by  Hosea,  147. 

Lactantius, 

quotes  from  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  the  work 

of  the  Apostle  John,  595. 
Lardner, 

believes  that  Matthew's  Gospel  was  origi 
nally  written  in  Greek,  542. 
Lane, 

on  the  resemblance  of  certain  Egyptian 
songs  to  the  Song  of  Solomon,  355. 


794 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


Lange, 

defends  the  ai«ostollc  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  763. 

Layard, 

on  Assyrian  music,  404. 

Le  Clerc, 

attributes   the   Pentateuch   to  a  captive 

priest,  67. 
on  Job,  329. 

Lekebusch, 

on  the  similarity  of  language  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  and  that  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles,  569. 

on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  571. 

Lengerke, 

attacks  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 
Lenormant, 

investigations  on  the  deluge,  225. 
Leontius  of  Byzantium, 

on  the  rejection  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 

of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  723. 
Leo  the  Great, 

rejects  First  John  v,  7—745. 
Less, 

regards  the  Book  of  Job  as  an  historical 

allegory,  432. 
Liddell, 

on  Greek  words  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  402. 
Lilienthal, 

defends  the  historical  character  of  the  Book 

of  Jonah,  432. 
Livy, 

on  the  fabulous  character  of  the  early  his 
tory  of  Rome,  254. 

Lueke, 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 

on  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  755. 

denies  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  763. 
Luderwald, 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Luthardt, 

defends  John  Gospel,  584. 

defends  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  763. 
Luther, 

concedes  historical  contradictions  in  the 
Bible,  ST. 

on  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Obadiah, 

on  the  Epistle  of  James,  711. 

declares  the  Epistle  of  Jude  to  be  of  little 

value,  740. 

doubts  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca- 
'    lypse,  762. 

Lutzelberger, 

attacks  John's  Gospel,  582. 

Maearius, 

receives  Second  Peter,  737. 

quotes  the  Apocalypse  as  an  authority,  761. 
M'Caul, 

on  the  Etruscan  views  of  creation,  221. 
M'Gill, 

on  Daniel's  use  of  Chaldee,  415. 
Manetho, 

his  account  of  Moses,  114. 
Mangold, 

on  the  identity  of  authorship  of  Luke's  Gos 
pel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  570. 

on  the  number  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast, 
755. 


Mareellus, 

quotes  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  work  of 
John,  596. 

Mareion, 

heretical  views  of,  524. 
Masius, 

denies  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by 
Moses,  67. 

Mayer, 

writes  in  defence  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Melanchthon, 

on  inspiration,  27. 
Melito, 

his  catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament,  33. 

on  the  position  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  401. 

alludes  to  the  twelve  minor  prophets  as 
one  book,  4^3. 

alludes  to  Second  Peter,  736. 

wrote  a  book  on  the  Apocalypse  of  John, 

757. 
Merivale, 

on  morbid  scepticism,  121. 

on  the  population  of  the  Roman  Empire, 

on  St.  Paul's  converts,  454. 

on  persecution  of  early  Christians,  730. 
Methodius, 

quotes  John's  Gospel,  595. 
Meyer, 

on  the  identity  of  authorship  of   Luke'3 

Gospel  and  the  Acts,  570. 
Miehaehs, 

defends  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pen 
tateuch,  68. 

on  Num.  i,  92. 

on  Chaldaisms  found  in  the  Book  of  Dan 
iel,  416. 

on  the  fictitious  character  of  the  Book  of 
Jonah,  432. 

defends  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  737. 

rejects  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  740. 
Mohammed, 

prophecies  concerning  the  Greeks,  32. 

asserts  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Koran, 

Muller,  (Max,) 

on  the  Persian  origin  of  the  Indo-Germanic 

languages,  222. 
Muratori,  (Canon  of,) 
account  of,  490. 
receives  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  John  as 

the  third  and  fourth,  the  two  others  be- 

insr  presupposed,  491. 
receives  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  491. 
enumerates  as  canonical  thirteen  Pauline 

Epistles,  a  letter  of  Jude,  and  two  Epistles 

and  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  491, 598,  659, 

662,  667,  674,  676,  680,  681,  692,  694,  696, 

697,  739,  747,  758,  761. 
omits  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Peter  and 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  491,  702,  710, 

723,735. 

Naehtigal, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  69. 
Neander, 

on  Irenaeus's  views  of  inspiration,  25. 

states  that  the  Syrian  version  was  used  in 
the  Armenian  Churches,  64. 

on  the  value  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  584. 

thinks    that  John  xxi  was  probably  re 
ceived  from  John's  own  lips,  625. 

on  the  date  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
666. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


795 


Neander,  (continued.) 

on  the  similarity  of  the  Epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians,  668. 

on  the  teachings  of  the  Apostle  James  con 
cerning  faith  and  works,  704. 

defends  the  Epistle  of  James,  705. 

on  the  date  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  707. 

considers  the  tradition  of  Peter's  martyr 
dom  at  Rome  probable,  713. 

on  the  time  of  the  composition  of  First  Pe 
ter,  728. 

on  "the  Church  that  is  at  Babylon,  '  132. 

rejects  Second  Peter,  737. 

attributes  the  Epistle  of  Jude  to  Jude,  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,  740. 

on  the  meaning  of  nvpia,  as  used  in  Second 
John  1—746. 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  the  Sec 
ond  Epistle  of  John,  747. 

favours  the  genuineness  of  the  Third  Epis 
tle  of  John,  748. 

on  the  persecution  by  Nero,  754. 

on  the  persecution  under  Domitian,  754. 

on  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  750. 

denies  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  763. 

.Nieephorus, 

places  the  Apocalypse  among  the  disputed 
writings,  763. 

Noetus, 

receives  John's  Gospel  as  genuine,  595. 
Noldeke, 

on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  71,  77. 

opposes  the  new  theory,  77. 

Novatian, 

quotes  John's  Gospel  extensively,  595. 

Oosterzee, 

on  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Origen, 

declares  the  inspiration  of  both  Testa 
ments,  25. 

not  an  advocate  of  literal  inspiration,  26. 

bis  catalogue  of  the  canonical  books,  34. 

acknowledges  the  canonicity  of  the  Books 
of  the  Maccabees,  35. 

his  Hexapla,  54. 

on  the  Samaritan  Scriptures,  176. 

on  the  position  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  401. 

on  the  great  number  of  the  early  Chris 
tians,  453. 

his  commentary  on  Matthew,  501,  539. 

his  reply  to  Celsus,  518. 

on  the  Hebrew  origin  of  Matthew's  Gospel, 
534. 

on  the  Ebionites,  535. 

on  the  Apostie  John,  582. 

on  Marcion's  rejection  of  the  last  two  chap 
ters  of  Romans,  652. 

on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  700. 

quotes  from  the  Epistle  of  James,  709. 

records  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Peter,  720. 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  the  First 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  723. 

refers  to  two  Epistles  of  Peter,  736. 

refers  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  740 

on  the  genuineness  of  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  of  John,  747,  748. 

on  the  banishment  of  the  Apostle  John  to 
Patmos,  752. 

asserts  that  the  Apostle  John  wrote  the 
Apocalypse,  758. 

Osburn, 

on  the  Egyptian  "  nou,"  226. 
Ovid, 

on  the  Golden  Age,  222. 


Paley, 

notices  coincidences  between  the  Acts  of 

the  Apostles  and  Paul's  epistles,  633. 
Palmer,  (E.  H.,) 

on  the  brackish  water  at  Marah,  245. 
on  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  245. 
his  experience  in  the  Sinaitic  desert  ac 
cords  with  that  of  the  Israelites,  245. 
follows  the  Israelitish  route  from  the  Red 

Sea  to  Mount  Sinai,  245. 
identifies  Mount  Sinai,  246. 
discovers  the  remains  of  a  large  encamp 
ment  at  Erweis  el  Ebeirig,  246. 
quotes  an  Arab  legend  referring  to  the  stay 
of  the  Israelites  at  Erweis  el  Ebeirig,  247. 
Papias, 

his  testimony  as  given  in  Eusebius,  510. 
on  the  authorship  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  534. 
quotes  from  First  Peter,  722,  731. 
receives  the  Apocalypse,  759. 
Pareau, 

considers  the  Book  of  Jonah  a  parable,  432 
Pausanias, 

on  the  gods  of  the  Athenians,  639. 
Peyrere, 

on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  67. 
Philo, 

his  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books  of  the 

Hebrews,  38. 

his  account  of  the  Septuagint,  51. 
speaks  of  Moses  as  the  writer  of  the  sacred 
books,  66. 

Philostorgius, 

on  the  suppression  of  portions  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  759,  note. 

Photixis, 

asserts  that  Ephraera  was  not  meanly  edu 
cated  in  the  Greek  language,  7:<8,  note. 
Piper, 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Plato, 

his  theory  of  the  development  of  animals, 

219. 
Pliny, 

on  coriander  seed,  161,  note. 

on  the  great  number  of  Christians,  451. 

on  the  persecution  of  Christians,  730. 
Plutarch, 

on  Persian  customs,  410. 

on  Alexander's  conquests  in  Asia,  457. 
Polyearp, 

quotes  from  some  of  the  Gospels,  513. 

quotes  from  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin 
thians,  656. 

quotes  from  First  Peter,  722,  728. 
Polyerates, 

his  account  of  the  Apostle  John,  581. 

his  testimony  to  John's  Gospel,  588. 
Porphyry, 

declares  the  Book  of  Daniel  to  be  spurious, 

397. 
Pott, 

defends  the   genuineness  of  the   Second 

Epistle  of  Peter,  737. 
Praxeas, 

receives  John's  Gospel  as  genuine,  595. 
Pseudo-Aristeas, 

his  history  of  the  Septuagint,  51. 

Quadratus, 

writes  an  "  Apology  "  for  the  Christian  re 
ligion,  454. 


796 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


Rawlinson,  (George,) 

on  the  traditions  of  a  golden  age,  223. 

on  the  universality  of  the  traditions  of  a 

deluge,  225. 

on  biblical  and  modern  ethnology,  226. 
on  the  early  Cushite  kingdom,  227. 
on  the  migration  of  tribes,  242. 
on  the  great  increase  of  the  Israelites  in 

Egypt,  242. 
on  Pul,  292. 

on  the  Assyrian  records,  292. 
on  the  annals  of  Sennacherib,  294. 

Renan, 

thinks  additions  were  made  to  Matthew's 

Gospel,  544. 
on  the  identity  of  authorship  of  Luke's 

Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  570. 
on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  571. 
on  the  date  of  John's  Gospel,  586. 
bis  high  estimate  of  John's  Gospel,  621. 
on  the  date  and  authorship  of  First  Peter, 

732. 

Reuss, 

on  the  number  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast, 
755. 

Riggenbaeh, 

on  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Robinson, 

on  the  frequency  of  the  proper  name  Kuria 
among  the  Greeks,  746. 

Rosen  muller, 

his  criticisms  on  Isaiah  xxiii,  20-25,  xxxiv, 
xxxv,  xxxviil,  373-375. 

on   Greek   musical   instruments   used  by 
Babylonians,  404. 

on  the  originality  of  Obadiah,  429. 

objects  to  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Zecha 
riah,  441. 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447. 
Rufinus  of  Aquileia, 

on  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  495. 

designates  Jude  as  an  apostle,  739. 

receives  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of 
John,  747,  748. 

receives  the  Apocalypse  as  canonical,  760. 

Sack, 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Sehleiermacher, 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 

doubts  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to 

the  Ephesians,  667. 

acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  First  Pe 
ter,  732. 

rejects  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  740. 
Sehneeken  burger, 

on  the  unity  of  authorship  of  Luke's  Gos 
pel  and  Acts,  570. 
Sehott, 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Sehrader, 

on  the  document  hypothesis,  72. 

on  the  Book  of  Joshua,  264. 

refers  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Judges 

to  the  close  of  the  Jewish  kingdom,  274. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  Books  of  Chroni 
cles,  302. 

his  remarks  on  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  303. 
on  the  authorship  of  Nehemiah,  313. 
on  the  prologue  and  epilogue  in  Job,  327. 
does  not  ascribe  any  psalm  to  Asaph,  338. 
concedes  a  large  share  of  the  Proverbs  to 

Solomon,  346. 
on  the  religious  doctrine  of  Ecclesiastes, 

350. 
nls  divisions  of  the  Song  of  Solomon,  354. 


Sehrader,  (continued.) 

on  the  character  of  the  Song  of  Solomon, 

355. 
thinks  Solomon  was  not  the  author  of  the 

Song,  356. 

on  the  authorship  of  Lamentations,  359. 
his  criticism  on  Isaiah  xxiii,  373. 
finds  repetitions  and  contradictions  in  the 

Book  of  Judges,  375. 
on  the  date  of  Joel's  prophecy,  426. 
his  objections  to  Zechariah  ix-xiv,  441 . 
on  Zechariah  ix-xi,  xii-xiv,  442. 
on  the  date  of  Zechariah's  prophecy,  443. 
on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  446. 

Sehwegler, 

assails  John's  Gospel,  584. 
assails  First  Peter,  724. 
on  the  date  of  the  composition  of  First  Pe 
ter,  728. 

Scott, 

on  the  Greek  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  402. 
Scrivener, 

enumerates  cursive  and  uncial  manuscripts, 
463. 

on  Codex  Ephraemi  Rescriptus,  465. 

Semler, 

on  the  character  of  the  Book  of  Jonah, 
432. 

on  the  authorship  of  First  Peter,  724. 

rejects  Second  Peter,  737. 
Simon,  (Richard,) 

on  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  67. 
Smend, 

on  the  priestly  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  76. 
Smith,  (George,) 

on  the  Chaldean  account  of  Genesis,  221. 

on  the  Babylonian  story  of  the  creation, 
221. 

on  the  Assyrian  account  of  the  deluge,  225. 

on  the  capture  of  Nineveh,  436,  437. 

Smith,  (Robertson,) 

incorrect  translation  of  passage  in  Hosea, 
145. 

Smith,  (William,) 

on  the  versatility  of  Julius  Cssar,  122. 
Solon, 

his  code  of  laws,  257. 
Sophocles, 

his  remarks  on  what  Papias  wrote,  512. 
Sozomen, 

asserts  that  Ephraem  the  Syrian  was  igno 
rant  of  Greek,  758,  note. 
Spinoza, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  67. 

objections  to  the  Book  of  Daniel,  397. 

Stahelin,  (J.  J.,) 

on  the  arrangement  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 
defends  Zechariah  ix-xiv,  441. 

Staudlin, 

on  the  fictitious  character  of  the  Book  of 

Jonah,  432. 
Stein, 

defends  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Stephens,  (Robert,) 

inserts  First  John  v,  7,  in  his  Greek  Testa 
ment,  745. 
Steudel, 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 
Strabo, 

on  Moses,  114. 

on  the  zeal  for  learning  exhibited  In  Tar« 
sus,  640. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


707 


Strauss, 

on  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  69. 

his  acknowledgment  respecting  Justin,  508. 

on  the  language  in  which  Matthew's  Gos 
pel  was  originally  written,  540. 

on  alleged  additions  to  Matthew's  Gospel, 
545. 

his  views  of  John's  Gospel,  583. 

Stuart,  (Moses,) 

on  Ecclesiastes,  351. 

defends  the  Book  of  Daniel,  398. 

defends  the  Book  of  Jonah,  432. 

on  the  number  of  the  Apocalyptic  beast, 
755. 

places  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse 
in  the  time  of  Nero,  756. 

defends  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apoca 
lypse,  763. 

Suetonius, 

on  persecution  of  early  Christians,  729. 
Suidas, 

on  the  taxing  under  Cyrenius  mentioned 

by  Luke,  576. 
Swanbeek, 

refers  the  "we"  sections  of  the  Acts  to 
Silas,  567. 

Tacitus, 

on  the  Mosaic  law,  114. 

witnesses  to  Christianity,  450. 

on  the  taxing  under  Cyrenius  mentioned 
by  Luke,  576. 

on  the  conviction  of  Christians  as  incendi 
aries,  71G,  729. 

on  the  popular  expectation  of  the  reap 
pearance  of  Nero,  755. 
Talmuds, 

their  catalogue  of  holy  writings,  40. 

account  of  Onkelos,  58. 

account  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  59. 

credit   Moses  with   authorship  of  Penta 
teuch,  66. 
Tertullian, 

on  the  spread  of  Christianity,  452. 

appeals  against  heretics  to  autographs  of 
Paul's  epistles,  462. 

on  the  authenticity  of  Luke's  Gospel,  502. 

on  Valentinus,  523. 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ga- 
latians,  662. 

on  the  title  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
603. 

on  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul  at 
Borne,  721. 

quotes  from  First  Peter,  723. 

Ignores  Second  Peter,  734,  735. 

quotes  from  Jude's  Epistle,  739. 

on  Jude's  quotation  from  Enoch,  740. 

alludes  to  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  746. 

on  the  persecutions  of  the  Apostle  John, 
752. 

attributes  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle 

John,  757. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 

on  degrees  of  inspiration,  27. 

on  Job,  332. 

his  rejection  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  723. 
Theodoret, 

on  the  Ebionites,  536. 

on  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  723,  724. 

on  the  ignorance  of  Greek  of  Ephraem  the 
Syrian,  758. 

rejects  the  Apocalypse,  761. 
Theophilus, 

tn  the  inspiration  of  the  Prophets  and  the 
Gospels,  25. 

on  Gospel  of  John,  586. 


Theophilus,  (continued.) 

quotes  from  Epistle  to  Romans,  651. 
quotes  from  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  757. 
Tholuck, 

on  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  571. 
on  the  genuineness  of  John's  Gospel,  584. 
Tischendorf, 

on  the  use  of  parchment  and  papyrus,  462. 
on  the  l^rge   number  of  ancient   sacred 

manuscripts  existing,  463. 
on  date  of  Codex  Sinaiticus,  464. 
on  date  of  Codex  Alexandrinus,  465. 
on  date  of  Codex  Vaticanus,  405. 
on  date  of  Codex  Ephraemi  Rescriptus,  465. 
on  date  of  Codex   Bezae  Graeco-Latinus, 

406. 

on  date  of  Codex  Laudianus,  466. 
on  date  of  Syriac  version,  471. 
his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 

522. 

on  the  Greek  original  of  Matthew's  Gos 
pel,  542. 

on  Mark's  Gospel,  560. 
on  John's  Gospel,  584. 
on  First  John  iv,  2,  3—742. 
on  First  John  v,  7—744,  745. 
on  Apocalypse  xii,  7—750. 
on  Apocalypse  i,  9 — 756. 
Tregelles, 

on  date  of  Codex  Sinaiticus,  464. 

on  date  of  Codex  Alexandrinus,  465. 

on  date  of  Codex  Laudianus,  466. 

on  date  of  Codex  Claromontanus,  466. 

on  date  of  Codex  Bezae  Graeco-Latinus, 

466. 
on  date  and  importance  of  Codex  Colbertl- 

nus,  437. 

on  date  of  Syriac  version,  471. 
his  plan  in  editing  the  Greek  Testament, 

487. 
his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 

522. 

on  First  John  iv,  2,  3—742. 
on  First  John  v,  7—744.  745. 
on  Apocalypse  xii,  7—750. 
on  Apocalypse  i,  9—756. 
Tristram, 

on  Balaam  and  Balak,  247. 

Ulphilas, 

his  reasons  for  not  translating  the  Books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings  into  the  Gothic  lan 
guage,  65. 
Urban, 

quotes  John's  Gospel,  595. 
Usher, 

holds  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  to  have 
been  encyclical,  665. 

Valentinus, 

quotes  Luke's  Gospel,  522. 

gives  valuable  testimony  to  the  Gospels, 

522. 
Van  Dale, 

attributes  the  Pentateuch  to  Ezra,  68. 
Van  der  Hardt,  (Hermann,) 
.      regards  the  Book  of  Jonah  as  an  historical 

allegory,  432. 
Vater, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  69. 
Vatke, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 
Victorinus, 

quotes  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  John's,  595. 
Vitringa, 

on  the  arrangement  of  the  canon,  369, 

on  the  date  of  Malachi's  prophecy,  447, 


798 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  QUOTED. 


Volkmar, 

denies  the  genuineness  of  John's  Gospel, 
584. 

Volney, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 
Von  Eohlen, 

on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  70. 

Von  Lengerke, 

on  the  sources  of  the  Pentateuch,  71. 

Wellhausen, 

on  the  Pentateuch,  74. 
Whiston, 

doubts  the    genuineness    of    Zechariah's 

prophecy,  441. 
Wilkinson, 

on  the  Eight  Books  of  Hermes,  115. 

on  the  temple  of  Zoan,  162. 

on  the  character  of  Egyptian  worship,  199. 

on  the  use  of  horses  and  camels  in  Egypt, 


Wilkinson,  (continued.) 

on  the  making  of  bricks  by  Egyptian  cap 
tives,  235. 

on  habits  of  Egyptian  gentlemen,  236. 
Wilson, 

on  Indian  cosmogony,  218. 

on  Brahma,  the  creator,  218. 

on  the  origin  of  castes,  219. 

Wolfenbuttel  Fragments,  69. 
Wuttke, 

on  repetition  in  Egyptian  poetry,  83. 

Zeller, 

on  the  identity  of  Kefr  Kenna  with  Cana 

of  the  Gospel,  605. 
on  the  origin  of  James  ii,  12—714. 
Zunz, 

on  the  antiquity  of  the  Targum  of  Pseudo- 
Jonathan,  60. 
Zwingle, 

expresses  doubts  of  the  apostolic  origin  d 
the  Apocalypse,  762. 


I 


Ifr- 

«H 

CV? 


0)1 


o; 
raj 

I 


-Hi 

-Pi 

o: 


°\ 

3 


i* 

o 

I    3 

^       H 


University  ol  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN  CO.  LIMITED